Business of the House: Standing Order 41

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That Standing Order 41 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Tuesday next to allow the Motion standing in the name of the Baroness Blackstone to be taken after that in the name of the Lord Grenfell; and on Wednesday next to allow the Motion standing in the name of the Lord Henley to be taken before that in the name of the Baroness Cumberlege.—(Baroness Symons of Verham Dean.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Minimum Wage (Enforcement Notices) Bill [HL]

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
	Clause 1 [Enforcement notices]:

Baroness Miller of Hendon: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 1, line 14, at end insert—
	"(2B) No notice under subsection (2) or (2A) shall be served in respect of any pay reference period more than six years before the date of the service of the notice.""

Baroness Miller of Hendon: The Bill is intended to correct an unintended anomaly in the substantive Act. It overrules a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal whereby a person who has been underpaid his entitlement to the national minimum wage but has left the employment forfeits his right to recover the lost amount.
	Parliament unarguably intended that every employee—present and past—should be able retrospectively to recover the arrears. The Bill, supported by these Benches, puts that matter right.
	However, the amending Bill, introduced by the Government, throws up yet another drafting omission in the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. The power to make retrospective orders under Section 2 of the Act did not impose any limitation on the extent of arrears that,
	"the Officer acting for the purposes of the Act",
	could order to be paid. But such underpayments when they occur, whether reprehensibly, deliberately or through inadvertence or ignorance, are nothing more or less than civil debts.
	Amendment No. 1, of which I gave the Government advance notice on Second Reading, simply confirms that this civil debt is subject to the same right of recovery under the Limitation Acts as any other civil debt. Even from the errant employer's point of view, the fact is that the majority—if not all—cases of underpayment, whether deliberate or accidental, will be by very small employers and even equity does not demand that he should be faced with a retrospective claim for what could be seven, eight or even more years of arrears. Six years is ample time for an employee to discover that he has been underpaid and to seek to recover those arrears.
	It would be another anomaly if an employee who pursued his civil claim via the courts was subject to the limitation Acts whereas one engaging the mechanics of this Act had unlimited time.
	The Committee may recall that when I raised this issue at Second Reading the Minister rejected the point on the grounds that,
	"the measure . . . can only be retrospective for three years as companies are required only to keep records for three years".
	He went on to say, in order to emphasis that argument:
	"Although I believe that civil debt can go back six years, the measure we are discussing could be retrospective for only three years".—[Official Report, 10/12/02; col. 156.]
	I thank the Minister for correcting that misstatement of the law in response to a letter I wrote to him after Second Reading. He is always very courteous; he was very courteous and speedy in this case.
	While referring to possible difficulties in establishing a claim going back more than three years, which I acknowledge, he wrote:
	"There is no time limit in the legislation on how far back enforcement notices may be taken".
	There is no time limit. Exactly. That is precisely the point of the amendment. I should like to think that the Government are not seeking to create a specially privileged class of creditor who would not be subject to the normal statute of limitation and that they will therefore correct the anomaly I have pointed out by accepting the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Razzall: The noble Baroness raises an extremely interesting point. I do not want to go into the arcane precedent of the law of limitations, as no doubt the Minister will have to do in order to respond to the noble Baroness, but I shall ask the Minister one fundamental question. I can envisage in 10 or 15 years' time, when presumably the minimum wage legislation will still be in force, although the rates may be different, that the kind of cases which the Bill contemplates will arise when someone discovers—albeit in this case after he or she has left the employment in question—that he or she has been underpaid for a considerable period of time. Why in those circumstances should the period of back pay to which that person is entitled be limited only to three years, or six years as in the amendment of the noble Baroness?
	If someone has been earning £6,000 a year in their previous employment and they should have been paid £7,000 a year, why should they not be entitled to the extra £1,000 a year going back to the time they started that employment? That is the core of the point which the Minister needs to answer before the Committee can comment or vote on the amendment of the noble Baroness.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The Government agree with the general thrust of the amendment, which aims to ensure that enforcement notices cannot go back for more than six years. However, in practice, we believe that the amendment is not needed.
	I shall begin by explaining the position under the present legislation. If an employer fails to comply with an enforcement notice, enforcement officers can pursue one of two options. First, officers can take a case to the county courts, in which case the Limitation Act 1980 already applies. They could seek to recover arrears only for a period of up to six years. Almost all the cases brought so far by the Revenue have used that route and are, therefore, already subject to the six-year restriction sought by the amendment. Secondly, officers can take a case to the employment tribunals, using the powers in the Employment Rights Act 1996. In that case, officers must put their case before the tribunals within three months of the last underpayment, but the Limitation Act does not apply. In theory, officers could pursue underpayments over a period exceeding six years. However, the three-month limit for bringing a claim is extremely tight and, in practice, that route has hardly ever been used by the Revenue.
	The legislation was deliberately designed to give enforcement officers similar rights in this area to those already held by the individual workers concerned, essentially to create the possibility that officers should be able to stand in for the workers and enforce their rights in much the same way as the workers themselves. In this legislation, we are talking about enforcement rights and enforcement officers, not the underlying rights in the basic legislation.
	I therefore think it would be wrong to create a position in which officers using the tribunals route could not go back as far as the workers themselves could, even though, as I said, few cases use that route. The great majority of cases brought by the Revenue can go back for only six years. Although, in theory, some cases could be taken back further, that seems extremely unlikely in practice. I should add that the average minimum wage case extends back for less than a year and—a point that I have made before—the minimum wage came into force only in April 1999. At the moment, therefore, cases could be taken back only for three and a half years in any event.
	The minimum wage regulations require employers to hold pay records only for three years, so that, in practice, the Revenue would find it difficult to pursue cases that went back further than three years, unless there was clear evidence, such as payslips, held by the worker and no dispute about the hours worked.
	For all those reasons, it seems likely that few cases will go back further than three years and very few will go back as far as or further than six years. I hope that that gives the noble Baroness the reassurance that she seeks and that she can agree to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: I shall withdraw the amendment, but I shall read carefully what the Minister said. The Minister intends to be helpful, not convoluted, but what he said struck me as being convoluted.
	The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, does not want to limit the period even to six years, and I understand that. I would not like the noble Lord to think that I do not want the employee to get whatever he deserves. I believe that he will—

Lord Razzall: Or she.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: Or she. I thank the noble Lord. However, he should not be able to bring the case 20 years later. That would be intolerable for a small employer. If the Minister is saying that it does not matter because there will be so few cases—one would be too many, if the person did not get paid—I cannot understand why the amendment cannot be accepted. It would not interfere with the Bill in any way.
	The Minister's letter says:
	"there is no time limit in the legislation".
	There ought to be. The Minister says that, in practice, there is a limit, but it seems that it is hard for him to accept amendments that I put down. He may smile at me, but I know that it is hard for him.
	All that the Minister need do is stand up and graciously accept the amendment. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 1 agreed to.
	Clause 2 [Short title, commencement and extent]:

Baroness Miller of Hendon: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 1, line 18, leave out subsection (2).

Baroness Miller of Hendon: At this stage, this is a probing amendment. When the Bill, which is intended to correct an anomaly that operates to the possible detriment of what may, admittedly, be a small number of employees, becomes an Act, it will not come into effect for two months. What is the reason for the delay?
	Neither employers, employees nor the Inland Revenue need to gear themselves up extensively to give effect to the Act. It is a simple matter. All that it involves is that, possibly, some extra cases—not many, I suspect—will be brought into the system now, rather than later. Whatever the number, there is no reason why they should be deferred at all. I remind the Minister of the adage:
	"Justice delayed is justice denied".
	If an employee discovers that he has not been paid what he is entitled to, he ought to be able to bring a case. As I said, it may be only a few people, but we are concerned that they should all get what they are entitled to as quickly as possible. I beg to move.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I believe that this amendment is intended to be helpful, as it would bring the Bill into force as soon as Royal Assent is obtained. I take this as an indication of general support for the Bill from the noble Baroness and am grateful to her for that.
	Personally I rather sympathise, being of a rather impatient temperament myself, with the proposal to bring the Bill into force straightaway, but I think that there is a good reason for not doing so.
	We have checked the position with the Cabinet Office and the established procedure is that Bills commence two months after Royal Assent, unless there are pressing reasons for bringing the Bill into force more rapidly. The idea is that both business and employees should have a reasonable opportunity to see and understand the implications of a new Act before it comes into force. Although I agree with the noble Baroness that the argument is not particularly strong in this case—where we are not changing the existing entitlement to the minimum wage—I think we can all agree that in general it is highly desirable that there is this period before a Bill comes into effect.
	Even where there are pressing legal reasons the two month commencement period is generally retained, except in the case of emergencies. This is clearly not an emergency. The Bill will allow enforcement officers to issue notices in respect of pay periods ending before the Bill comes into force, so we shall be able to recover past moneys owed to workers whether the Bill comes into force in, say, March or May of this year.
	So, although I sympathise with the aims of this amendment, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw it.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: I made it clear that it was a probing amendment. I thank the Minister, first, for having sympathy with the amendment and, secondly, for taking it to the Cabinet Office. I am grateful to him for that. However, while I shall certainly withdraw the amendment, I do not really accept what he is saying because in this case the reason for bringing forward the Bill is that the first Bill was drafted incorrectly. Had it been drafted correctly the employee would receive his money immediately. In view of that, I believe that employees are entitled still to do so because the mistake is the fault—I do not say of the Government or the Minister—of the actual Act and the way in which it was drafted. Therefore, I ask the Government and the Minister to be sympathetic again and push the point. If the Government had not made the error in the first place, employees would have been able to receive their money on the same day as the Act came into force, which was over a year ago. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 2 agreed to.
	House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Voting Age (Reduction to 16) Bill [HL]

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	This Bill does exactly what it says on the can. It would reduce the voting age in parliamentary and other elections to 16. There are two principal reasons for doing this. One is equity and justice. The other is the opportunity which it might give us to make a contribution to the revival of active democratic politics in this country, whose decline over many years we are all well aware of and much concerned with.
	I turn first to the argument of equity, which I see as the main argument. In the process of a child's life from birth to 21 we accord it various responsibilities at various ages. At age five, a child is expected to know how to behave well—and can be thrown out of school if he or she does not. At age 10, a child can be convicted of murder and has criminal responsibility. At age 16, a whole slew of responsibilities are lumped onto children. They can get married; they can leave home; and they can join the Armed Forces. It is an age when we turn children out of children's homes. Sixteen is a great turning point in a child's life. At 17, we allow them to drive; at 18, we allow them to buy cigarettes and alcohol; and at 21, we accord them the most dangerous privilege of all, which is standing for election for Parliament.
	The question is: where in that spectrum should we allow them to vote? I suppose it depends on whether a vote is regarded as a right or a privilege. Through the centuries a vote has been regarded as a privilege—for example, in arguing against women's suffrage. I remember from my own youth the argument against the extension of suffrage to the black population in Rhodesia—they were not ready for it; they did not know enough; and it was not a privilege that they were yet up to exercising. If we did give them the vote they would merely elect a monkey, as in Hartlepool. That is an argument founded on the idea that a vote is a privilege. If one follows down that route we in this country should have some kind of examination before someone is allowed to exercise a vote to prove that they understand the issues in question.
	However, that is not the basis that we act on in this country. In this country, we regard a vote as a right. Rights should go with responsibilities. In this country, after our various efforts over past years, 16 is the age at which we accord children responsibilities. That is when we throw them out into the world, when we put the burdens of the world on their shoulders and that is when we should accord them the right to vote.
	As the old adage says, "No taxation without representation". Much the same, to my mind, applies to all the other burdens that we place on children's shoulders. We have chosen to do it at 16. That is when they should have the right to have a say in how they are governed and how those burdens are placed on them.
	Turning to the other aspect which is of opportunity, we are taking steps at last to see whether we can revive an interest in democratic politics in this country and reverse the gradual decline in participation in general and other elections. One of the most significant changes, to my mind, is the introduction of a citizenship curriculum in schools, so that children will go out into the world knowing something of what their rights and opportunities are in a world of democratic politics. It will be a little strange to say to those kids, "We can teach you about it before 16 but you haven't actually got any rights to exercise and get involved in these things until you are 18". That misses a tremendous opportunity to get kids involved at that age.
	As part of the citizenship curriculum, children could be encouraged to register for voting and encouraged to participate in whatever elections are taking place at the same time. There is so much practical application and involvement in the modern curriculum. One could even have it as a project: "This is what I did during the 1986 local elections. These were the issues. These were the positions I took. This is what I did. This is my participation in it." There are elections of one form or another most years—certainly every other year—in which children could be involved. There is no reason why it should not be part of the curriculum—if children so wish they could pursue it and to be involved.
	There is no bar on politics in schools. We teach extensive politics under the headings of environmentals and history. There is a great deal of politics in that. Not to include the full span of current politics, current involvement and current issues seems to me to be a great missed opportunity.
	We should not be afraid of political debate and political radicalism at that age. A lot of the current Cabinet were active politically at that age. Yes, now they do not hold the opinions that they held then but that does not invalidate the fact that when they were 16, 17 and 18, they were active politically and held views which were a valid set of views for them to have at that age. We should not deny children the right to vote merely because with mature reflection 40 years on they do not hold the view that they held then.
	Therefore, there seems to me to be a great argument in favour of getting the young involved politically. It provides the opportunity to revive real democratic debate. We can also find other ways of involving young people. There seems to me to be no reason why we should not allow them to stand for election to parish councils. It is hard enough to get good people on to parish councils in any event and if a young person is prepared to participate and put in the necessary amount of time, why not? We should encourage them to be part of other semi-democratic bodies such as school governing bodies and so forth. That happens in some cases, but not as widely as might be the case.
	Indeed, when we are looking at the future of this House, we might even consider having a youth representation. How else are we to choose the democratic representatives who are to come here? It cannot be on the basis of parliamentary constituencies or we would rival MPs, and it cannot be on the basis of Euro constituencies because that is a recipe for apathy. To use proportional representation would make us more legitimate than the House of Commons. The template we have been offered is that we should be a House which represents all parts of the kingdom and all interests. Youth is part of that, and if you get people to vote for a group of which they believe themselves to be part and in which they take an interest, you have a hope of reviving real interest.
	There are many ideas to be pursued, and if we are to revive democratic politics in this country we must be prepared to be adventurous and try different things. It may not work—so many things must come together to make it work. Giving votes to 16 year-olds has worked in Germany and there is greater participation and interest, but it may not work in this country. However, we have the opportunity to try things and we should consider votes at 16 now. Because of all that we have done to give responsibilities to 16 year-olds, it is right that we should give them the right to vote. We need to take the opportunity now to start at the base and revive an interest in democratic politics in this country.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a question. Does he not believe that there is a danger of parental bullying of 16 year-old kids when they go to vote? That is a danger.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, surely the point of the secret ballot is that what a person does in the voting booth is entirely up to him. I suspect that a great deal of bullying of grandmothers goes on, too. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Lucas.)

Lord Rennard: My Lords, it is 34 years since a Bill was passed that lowered the minimum age for voting in this country. Much has changed in Britain since then. The attitudes of young people as well as attitudes towards them have moved on considerably. So it must be right to reconsider the question of what is the appropriate age to allow someone to vote. We should therefore thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for bringing forward this Bill.
	The Bill is actually in full accord with Liberal Democrat policy that voting rights should be afforded from the age of 16. It will, of course, be suggested by some that many young people are not sufficiently mature, well informed or interested to cast a vote. My experience of elections, however, suggests that it would be quite wrong to suggest that everybody over the age of 18 has this maturity, level of knowledge and interest—while nobody aged 16 or 17 possesses these qualities.
	This Bill does not suggest that voting should be compulsory for 16 and 17 year-olds. It would simply allow those who attain the age of 16 by the end of October 2004 to vote in public elections thereafter—if they wish to do so. The age at which it may be appropriate to vote will actually vary from person to person. Perhaps I would have been too young to cast my first vote at the age of 16. But by that age, I was the secretary of the Liverpool Wavertree Constituency Liberal Party and I had been treasurer of the Church Ward Liberal Association for three years.
	In my sixth form at the Liverpool Blue Coat School, there were many of my contemporaries sufficiently interested in politics and current affairs to hold a sensible discussion and who would have been conscientious voters at the ages of 16 or 17. Sadly, from my point of view, they were overwhelmingly Conservative in the late 1970s—but they were certainly able to make an informed choice.
	Nearly two years ago, I took part in a sixth form debate at Upper Warlingham school in Surrey together with representatives of the Conservative and Labour parties. The concerns of young people were eloquently addressed by the sixth formers present. An intelligent and well informed discussion was held on issues ranging from homelessness to the environment, from cannabis to student tuition fees.
	There was no doubt that many of those young people were at least as ready as most voters to consider carefully how they would mark their cross on a ballot paper. But perhaps because those aged 16 and 17 are not able to vote, many of the issues about which they are most concerned are not fully reflected in the priorities of many politicians.
	All those who believe in democracy must want to encourage democratic participation. It is my belief that if people do not engage in the process of choosing their lawmakers, they are less likely to respect the laws that are enacted, less likely to believe that change can come about in a fair and democratic way, and their opting out of the democratic process has many dangers. We should therefore encourage 16 and 17 year-olds to engage in the process as soon as they feel ready.
	Someone who is 16 in 2004 might not have a chance to vote in a general election until he is 21 and has learnt to experience many facets of adult life, but not including voting for his Government. By then, the evidence is that he may well have come to the conclusion that voting is for someone else and not for him. There will, of course, be partisan interest by the parties as to what would be the effect of allowing younger people to vote. Indeed, Peter Riddell in The Times on Monday suggested that the only hope for the Conservative Party might be to raise the minimum age of voting to 56 and above. But let us put the interests of younger people first and let us encourage them to be responsible citizens as soon as they are ready.

Lord Renton: My Lords, we should be grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas for giving us the opportunity to consider this matter. However, I must confess that I do not believe that there is any case in favour of giving school children at the age of 16 the responsibility of deciding which party shall be in power and what kind of government we shall have. I will come to more of that later.
	As for the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, of course one remembers well. Perhaps I may confess that I was born a Liberal, too, and that at the age of about 10 I started talking politics with my father, who was also a Liberal. I became very interested in the subject but the more I did so and the older I grew, the more I realised that experience of life and the world was necessary for one to exercise a useful judgment in voting. I must say that I am totally against the proposal in my noble friend's Bill and I see little chance of it reaching the statute book, thank goodness.
	I hope that no one will take it amiss if I point out the limitations of the electorate as it is, with all men and women over the age of 18—or (shall I say?) with young men and girls over the age of 18—having the right to vote. I hope that your Lordships will not mind my reminding the House that I fought and won 10 general elections; that I never had a majority of less than 5,000; and that in the large and varied constituency I represented for 34 years at least two-thirds of the voters—certainly two-thirds of those who voted—were wage earners and their families. I had great respect for them and they did not hesitate to vote for or against me. But most of them, of course, in order to get the majorities that I had, must have voted for me.
	The issues in every general election are varied, but every time we find among them the issues of foreign affairs and defence, which are very big subjects; the economy; the standard of living; poverty; the need for ever improving education; and the avoidance of crime, which has become much more of an issue more recently and difficult to decide. Indeed, we are told—I do not like to think of it—that even within Her Majesty's present Government there are various opinions on how to reduce crime.
	In addition to the issues that arise to a greater or lesser extent at every general election, there are other issues which vary considerably. It seemed to me during the years that I spent as a Member of another place that relatively few voters understood the causes of all the variable important problems; less, sometimes, did they understand the nature of the variable policies put forward by the parties for dealing with those problems. They were not easy issues to understand. Indeed, the younger and less educated the voter, the more difficult they found them to be.
	The lowering of the voting age from 21 to 18, some 34 years ago, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, pointed out, increased the number of voters who found it difficult to understand the issues or their solutions. If we were to lower the voting age from 18 to 16, so bringing in vast numbers of semi-educated—and, indeed, sometimes under-educated—children, we would make democracy in this country even less reliable. For those reasons, I trust that the Bill will never be enacted.

Lord Monson: My Lords, it was interesting to hear the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, argue most persuasively, as always, the case for his Bill.
	It is fascinating to compare the setting of different voting ages in different countries historically. It might be assumed that a low minimum voting age would be associated with progress and modernity, and a high minimum voting age with small "c" conservatism and even reaction. But if you were to assume that you would be wrong. Some 50 or so years ago, Professor C. Northcote Parkinson set out to rank the nations of the world according to their degree of civilisation overall as he saw it. Factors considered in this evaluation included, for example, long average life expectancy, low infant mortality, free access to good quality medical care and education, low crime rates, low road accident rates, minimal censorship and so on. Although this formula was devised by Professor Northcote Parkinson himself, few political commentators challenged it or disagreed with it.
	The half-dozen countries deemed on this basis to be the most civilised in the world included the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Yet the minimum voting age in Norway and Sweden at around that time was 23, and in Denmark and the Netherlands it was 25. Conversely, the first major countries to lower their minimum voting age to 18 were the Soviet Union, and South Africa in the days of apartheid. As Desmond Tutu used to complain wearily, although neither he nor any other highly-educated black person had access to the ballot box, any semi-literate 18 year-old white labourer had full voting rights—and we all know what a farce voting in the Soviet Union used to be. So clearly there is no historical correlation between a low minimum voting age and what might be described as "national virtue".
	Nowadays, of course, almost all democracies have a common minimum voting age of 18, in line with the age of majority. What is the case, therefore, for stepping out of line with most of the rest of the world and lowering the voting age to below the age of majority, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, bearing in mind that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as anyone under the age of 18?
	One argument that I have heard was not mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. One accepts that Britain, albeit to no greater extent than the rest of Europe or Japan, is afflicted by a frankly inadequate birth rate, causing the average age of the population to go up and up, with many unfortunate consequences. One of these, although by no means the most serious, is that the average age of the electorate is obviously rising in tandem, posing the theoretical danger that the interests and aspirations of younger people may be sidelined.
	But this presupposes that most older people are either childless or, if they are parents, are unconcerned with or dismissive of the younger generation's interests and ambitions. I doubt, on the whole, that this is the case. But, even if I am over sanguine in supposing that there is no real clash of generations and that the late Sixties and early Seventies was a one-off aberration, I still submit that lowering the voting age to 16 would simply substitute the fire for the frying pan. Because, unless the retirement age were smartly revised upwards to, say, 68 or 70 for both men and women, there would be a danger that recipients of so-called "state" aid—I say "state" but of course the state has no money of its own; it all comes from taxpayers—students, the unemployed and the retired, would increasingly outvote the working population in matters relating to the allocation of resources. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, spoke of no taxation without representation. One could argue that there ought not to be any representation without taxation, but I shall not go into that issue now. For these and other reasons, I am afraid that I cannot support the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
	I have one final point. The noble Lord suggests that if the Bill is read a second time it should be committed to a Committee of the Whole House. But not much can be done with the Bill; the age cannot be altered because the short Title does not permit it. The Bill extends to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as well as to England, but I wonder whether the Scottish Parliament would be under any obligation to accept this proposal were the Bill to pass, or whether of its own accord it could decide to raise or lower the minimum voting age. It will be interesting to hear the Minister's answer when he comes to reply.

The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, the House is indebted to my noble kinsman Lord Lucas for giving us the opportunity to consider this proposal. The case rests on the undoubted failure of many in society to meet their responsibilities—at the moment a responsibility to exercise their vote seriously. The voting record is lamentable. It is an indictment of our society that the number who vote is declining. So before we reject my noble kinsman's Bill we should be careful to analyse what might be required to encourage people to take their duties more seriously .
	There have been any number of initiatives in this area. Four years ago, Lord Jenkins chaired an independent commission examining different voting systems in an attempt to determine what system might more accurately reflect the wish of the electorate. The present lack of interest probably stems as much from disenchantment with the whole system as anything else—a sense of lack of involvement, the feeling among people that they have no ability to influence the larger political parties.
	A number of initiatives are taking place at different levels. My noble kinsman referred to citizenship education. It is a sensible and worthy initiative at key stages 3 and 4 to encourage 14 to 16 year-olds to understand better the electoral process and the party system, the role of NGOs and much else besides.
	I say with great respect to my noble friend Lord Renton that I do not share his concern that the educational level of 16 year-olds is such that they are unlikely to be able to make a contribution by exercising their vote. I have rather more confidence. I have no great concern that they will be bullied by their parents, as might be suggested. I seem to hear an echo from across the years. When the vote was to be extended to women, the argument was advanced that women were bound to obey their husbands so what on earth was the point of giving them the vote. I do not know whether your Lordships have ever tried to bully a 16 year-old. I do not recommend it.
	Sustainable development, geography in the news and many educational initiatives rightly encourage 15 and 16 year-olds to look at the role that society should be playing in terms of wider responsibility. I take the view—it may be simplistic but I take it nevertheless in the hope that we can improve on our present rather lamentable record—that if we can encourage people who have been inducted in a way for which there is presently an appetite to consider their responsibilities in society and at the same time cement their interest by giving them the opportunity to vote, I quietly and confidently expect that that would be appreciated and that their views would be just as valid as those of Members of this House. I should certainly not wish to be so patronising as to suggest that the views of 15 and 16 year-olds are unlikely to be valid because of their lack of experience.
	I accept, however, that this is a matter of judgment. I should not want the vote to be given to those below the age of 16. But 16 has a certain symmetry to it, bearing in mind the educational attainments of 16 year-olds. In terms of my own personal record, I think that I peaked as a politician at about 16. It has been downhill ever since in terms of lack of interest. I had a great appetite in this regard at that age, as did the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. I have no difficulty therefore in assuming that 16 and 17 year-olds would make an effective contribution.
	I should judge such an experiment retrospectively to see whether it had been a success—not by the complexion of the government who might have been elected as a result of widening the franchise in this way but by seeing how many people continued to exercise their right to vote in future elections.
	At present, the record of the 18 to 28 year-old age group is, frankly, even worse than that of the population at large. That suggests to me disenchantment. It suggests that not having been able to participate in a system about which they were taught two or three years before they were able to exercise their vote was something of a turn-off—an opportunity lost. It takes a great deal of time to return people to an interest in the subject and to an understanding of their responsibilities.
	I commend my noble kinsman on introducing the Bill. I, for one, will give it my support.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and to endorse what has been said in support of his proposal not only by my noble friend Lord Rennard but also by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne.
	I have to confess that, originally, when the idea of reducing the voting age from 18 to 16 was mooted as policy for my party, I was somewhat sceptical about it. I have since changed my mind. The main reason for that is the seriously worrying decline in the level of voting and public interest in politics. I believe that a reduction in the voting age is part of the remedy.
	The great majority of young people now stay on at school until the age of 18. If the voting age were to be reduced to 16, half of those who stay on would have the chance while at school to vote in a general election, given the four-year average length of a Parliament. Certainly, half of all students in Scotland and Wales would have the chance to vote for their national Parliament or Assembly. Almost certainly, everyone would have a chance to vote in a local election.
	Students in years 12 and 13 are capable of taking an active and lively interest in politics. Anyone who has stood as a parliamentary candidate in a general election would agree that school students in their A-level years are one of the most challenging and lively audiences that one could meet. They ask difficult and perceptive questions. I remember an occasion when one of my opponents in the old Kensington constituency was "mangled" by the sixth form at Holland Park comprehensive school because he talked to them as if they were a bunch of 12 year-olds.
	The fact that some people, such as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, have changed their minds since they reached the age of 16 is no argument for saying that 16 year-olds should not have the vote. Indeed, some of us would say that the noble Lord's second thoughts were not as good as his original ones.
	The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, suggested in his intervention that 16 year-olds might be bullied by their parents. I note that the noble Lord has three sons, and I wonder whether he would have told them at the age of 16 how to vote, and if he had whether he thinks they would have done what he told them out of fear.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, perhaps I may answer that point. If I had done so, they might well have voted the wrong way from my point of view for the wrong reason. That is my point.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, if older school students are allowed to vote, I believe that the casting of their vote could become a kind of rite of passage. It is much more likely to happen with 16 and 17-year olds still at school than with those who are 18 or older. University students, particularly if they are living away from home and therefore away from their own constituency, are likely to take a reduced interest in politics because they have lost their constituency links. They will take a reduced interest unless they belong to that class of student politicians who are sometimes student political nerds. If 18 year-olds are not at university, they are mostly in the workplace, where there is unlikely to be a great deal of talk about politics.
	There is, however, one big "if". I believe that a reduction in the voting age will have a real effect on the political process only if it is coupled with truly effective training in citizenship. I welcome the fact that there will be such training now. Students need to be told why voting matters, and how people fought for the vote. They need to know how, and why, men of the lower, middle and working classes fought for it in the 19th century and women fought for it in the early 20th century. They need to be told that politics is the most crucial profession and that, in our country at least, the majority of politicians are honourable people trying to do their best. I wish we had a domestic television programme comparable with the American programme "The West Wing", which shows politicians as idealistic and committed people.
	Students should be taught that they not only have the right to vote but a duty, although not a legal one. I would strongly oppose any proposal to make voting compulsory. All of us with the right to vote have a moral duty. If students could vote while they were being taught about the importance of voting, it would get them off to a good start. For those reasons, and on behalf of our Benches, I give wholehearted support for the Bill.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I compliment my noble friend on his eloquence in deploying cogent arguments for his Bill. I also express my appreciation of those who criticised it. The timing of the debate is felicitous, because the Electoral Commission is currently examining the minimum voting age in some depth. Its examination will include open public consultation to enable individuals and organisations to make their views known. I also hope that its report will assess the effect of voting at 16 in countries where it has been adopted, albeit that some such as Cuba and North Korea are single-party states. None of the seven countries where there is voting at 16 is European, although there has been an experiment in one of the Lander in Germany.
	The Electoral Commission has already touched on the issue in its research paper Voter engagement and young people published in July last year. That paper pursued the research finding by MORI at the time of the last election that the overall turnout of 59.4 per cent of eligible voters was the lowest since the advent of universal suffrage. My noble friend Lord Selborne referred to that in detail. Low turnout was particularly pronounced among young people, with only an estimated 39 per cent of 18 to 24 year-olds casting a vote. It is also estimated that only 60 per cent of that age group were registered to vote. I shall make no comment on that but I am sure that noble Lords will come to their own conclusions.
	Low turnout at elections concerns us all if it is not explicable by a considered decision to abstain. There is considerable speculation about the causes and possible remedies. Those who have studied the matter only cursorily, as I have, realise that if Parliament lowered the voting age, we might increase the total number voting, but we would not necessarily increase the percentage turnout if the inaction that characterised 18 to 24 year-olds in the previous election were simply to be extended to the 16 to 18 age group. Of course, that is an unwarranted assumption on my part.
	It could be argued—indeed, it has been—that voting at 16 might encourage the practice of voting, especially if the grant of the vote were accompanied by effective, impartial education in citizenship, its rights and responsibilities. Voting at 16 might have a salutary effect on the use of the vote in later life, not just by the newly enfranchised but by their parents and others whom they might influence positively. Of course, I respect the possibility that it could be the other way round. The obverse scenario is that an extension of the franchise is simply equated with an extension of apathy and the negative factors promoting low turnout.
	Some bodies, notably the Electoral Reform Society, have already committed themselves to the principle of granting the vote to 16 year-olds. They are actively campaigning for it, with the support of a variety of youth organisations, including the British Youth Council, Children's Rights Alliance and the National Youth Agency. The ERS, in its submission on the Scottish Executive's White Paper on the future of local government, states,
	"there is a far greater case for lowering the voting age than mere turnout".
	It puts forward arguments that merit attention. We have heard some of them during this debate. Like my noble friend Lord Lucas, it points to the inconsistency between the voting age of 18 and the age at which a young person can leave school, work full time, pay taxes, leave home, join the Armed Forces and receive social security benefit—all at 16. Taxation without representation appears to be the lot of a substantial proportion of 16 and 17 year-olds. But even younger people pay tax, although perhaps only in VAT on sweets. Elsewhere in its documents the ERS refers to the right to marry at 16 with parental consent. My only comment in general is that there is also a thrust in society today to increase rather than lower the age in some areas, especially, for example, in education. Many noble Lords remember, as I do, when the school leaving age was 14 and many young people went to work then. Our attitude to young people is now more protective. We want them to remain children while they grow up.
	The ERS also argues that,
	"not letting 16 and 17 year olds express their political views through the ballot box gives the impression to them and the rest of society that their views are not valid and that they are not real citizens. This contributes to the disconnection that many young people feel from the political process and structures".
	There may be some truth in that, but the electoral behaviour of 18 to 24 year-olds does not suggest that the right to vote in itself will make a real difference. I note the finding of a trial in Lower Saxony that suggests that 16 to 17 year-olds may behave differently from 18 to 24 year-olds and take a rather more active interest than the second age group.
	It is also argued that the denial of the vote to these young people is based on similar grounds to the denial of the vote to women before the 1920s. That is a debatable point, too, which has been referred to by a number of speakers in the course of this debate. But at the end of the day, I come back to the Prime Minister's point in his shrewd answer to a question from Matthew Green, the Member for Ludlow, on 23rd January last year. He said:
	"I am not sure that we would always want 16-year-olds to do all the things they can do".—[Official Report, Commons, 23/1/02; col.887.]
	He did not agree with the proposal to lower the voting age. He believed that it should remain as it is. I think that the Prime Minister was probably reflecting the protective attitude of parents who, however advanced and well informed—perhaps precocious—their children are, they wish them to have time to develop their powers of judgment and achieve a degree of political maturity before they vote. What is a proper degree of political maturity is another matter and that would be a debate in itself. But that is the ground on which arguments against a reduction in the voting age are largely based.
	While the campaign for a lower voting age has many supporters, including, as we have heard, the Liberal Democrats—Liberal Democrat Peers have expressed it—the Scottish nationalists and the Welsh nationalists, I am not aware of any cross-party parliamentary body that has recommended a change in what some may regard as a totally arbitrary age line of 18. The Howarth Working Party on Electoral Procedures considered the matter, but it did not recommend a change and neither did the Home Affairs Committee inquiry into electoral law and administration. The Commission on Local Government electoral arrangements in Wales, on the other hand, has recommended a lower voting age to the National Assembly. But I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that to the best of my recollection the commission did not advance a substantive argument.
	This is certainly not a proposal that is going away. We have been here before and certainly another place has. The increasing dependence of our ageing population on the young and the latter's corresponding increase in economic and political importance will ensure that the issue will remain prominent. We want young people to interest themselves in politics and we want to hear their views. We may be sure that the Electoral Commission's research will certainly fuel debate. There has already been one quite interesting debate in Westminster Hall.
	My noble friend's Bill gives us all a chance to weigh the arguments, look at them again, and re-assess our own views. I am sure that we are very open minded in spite of our achieved maturity. I for one am certainly grateful to my noble friend for stimulating debate on the issue by promoting the Bill before us.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on introducing his Bill, aimed as it is at enfranchising more young people. The noble Lord encourages us to be adventurous. He has certainly provoked very lively debate which, as the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, has said, will continue for some time. Indeed, the debate is going on inside and outside your Lordships' Chamber.
	There is an irony in that we who are disenfranchised as regards general elections are taking the lead, as it were, in extending the franchise to younger people and having the debate. I should also say at this early stage that, as is usually the case as regards Private Members' Bills, the Government do not take a formal view for or against it in its progress through your Lordships' House. We will take no steps to oppose it.
	I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would have expected me to approach this matter with some considered views. I decided at an early stage, knowing that I had to deal with the Bill, that I should form a focus group on the issue. That is very popular in Labour circles. The defining feature of this focus group had to be that all participants shared my surname Bassam and that they had to be aged seven to 14 years. In accordance with good practice in a democratic household, they were extensively consulted over this matter.
	The good news from the noble Lord's perspective is that they all favoured the notion of reducing to 16 the age at which they might vote. The bad news is that were they to be able to cast their vote from that age onward I do not believe that it would greatly affect the prospects of the noble Lord's political party.
	More seriously, the Government remain deeply concerned at the lack of engagement among young people in the democratic process. I know that one noble Lord at least mentioned the way in which turn out at general elections has been steadily reducing. I was recently reading an account of the 1950 general election at which 80 per cent of the population voted. It is widely understood that at the last general election just 59 per cent of the population voted.
	Lowering the voting age may be seen as one way of addressing this issue although as the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, reflected, extending and widening the franchise does not necessarily increase the percentage turn out at subsequent elections.
	The question of the political and democratic engagement of young people goes much wider, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made very clear, than just the voting age. The Government have taken several legislative steps in recent years to modernise and simplify electoral law and processes so that they take account of, and are more relevant to, modern lifestyles and habits, including in particular those of younger people. For example, we have already introduced rolling registration, registration for those without a conventional address and postal voting on demand. Such measures make it easier both to register to vote and to cast a ballot.
	We want to see in place elections that adopt a multi-channelled approach and take advantage of new technology with which young people are growing up and with which they are comfortable and familiar. To find out the best way of doing this we have enabled local authorities to carry out pilot schemes under the Representation of the People Act 2000 to test new ways of voting, such as through the Internet, telephone, SMS text messaging and so on, to ensure that they work and that they are safe and secure. We are committed to an e-enabled general election taking place, no doubt, some time after 2006. We consulted widely on e- democracy in our In the Service of Democracy consultation paper last year. That addressed the essential and vital point that engagement with the democratic process goes far beyond simply voting. It also specifically asked,
	"young people, whether at school, university or work"
	for their views.
	We recognise that changing the voting system and lowering the age, as the noble Lord suggests, cannot of themselves address the issue of the engagement of young people including those who are perhaps uninterested in politics from the outset. But we are determined to identify—

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Although lowering the age of voting may not alone affect the engagement of young people, the Labour government of 1966 considered that it was a significant factor in reducing the voting age from 21 to 18. To further the examination and argument they appointed a Speaker's Conference in which I had the honour to serve. It recommended a reduction in the voting age. Have the Government given consideration to the appointment of a Speaker's Conference to focus on this issue at this time?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we have not considered that approach. However, we established the Electoral Commission, which is actively considering all these issues. No doubt its reports and reflections on such matters will inform continued debate on the subject. I believe that that is perhaps the best way for us to address the issue.
	In general, we are determined to identify other ways in which we can stimulate and encourage younger people to become involved. A number of initiatives have already been undertaken in the field. For example, through the "YVote?/YNot?" exercise, the Children and Young People's Unit explored with young people what can be done to ensure that they receive the information needed to bring issues to life for them, and thus encourage their participation. The Electoral Commission has researched,
	"Voter engagement and young people",
	and has carried out campaigns and competitions aimed specifically at sparking the interest of young people, such as "Votes are power" and a design competition on the importance of voting.
	As a number of noble Lords observed, the concept of citizenship was introduced into the school curriculum from 2002 to interest and inform young people in the democratic process. Above all, it has to be the case that we listen to young people to find out, and implement, what they want and need in order to enable them to play their full part.
	I turn to the specific purpose of the Bill. As most noble Lords have noted, wider discussion of voting age and other electoral issues must be beneficial in raising the profile of electoral matters, in gauging public views, especially those of young people, and, most importantly, in informing policy-making. As has been mentioned, many bodies both within and outside government are presently examining the question of the voting age and related issues. The independent Electoral Commission is preparing to look at such issues, and we fully welcome that initiative.
	Throughout the world, 18 years of age is by far the most common minimum age for voting. Some 142 countries set their voting age at 18 for at least one of their chambers of parliament: 171 chambers altogether have a franchise at 18. Only three, Korea, Indonesia, and the Sudan, set the voting age at 17, with a further three, Brazil, Cuba, and Nicaragua, permitting voting at 16, and just one, Iran, setting the age at 15.
	As has been acknowledged, the age of majority in the United Kingdom was last reviewed in depth in the 1960s by the Latey commission, whose recommendation was brought into effect through the Representation of the People Act 1969. There has been no further legislative move on this subject since then, although an amendment was proposed to reduce the minimum voting age to 16 during the Committee stage of the Representation of the People Bill in 1999. However, that legislation had been drawn up to implement the recommendations of the Howarth working party, and was fast-tracked on the understanding that it was purely a vehicle to implement those recommendations. We took the view that amendments on other issues could have endangered its fast-track status. Therefore, the amendment was opposed and defeated at that stage.
	Any decision on the major step of further reducing the voting age cannot be taken in isolation, or without widespread public debate. While the Government are not necessarily opposed to the policy that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is seeking to push forward, we argue that his Bill is premature—

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. I wonder whether he could consider why extreme regimes have a higher incidence of voting at the age of 16 than other kinds of democratic regimes. Can he express a view as to why that might be the case?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my noble friend makes an interesting observation. No doubt the point relates to the issue he raised earlier about bullying and intimidation. Obviously, we wish to reflect on such issues. For that reason, it is also right that the Government should reflect on the results of the research currently being undertaken on the potential impact of reducing the minimum voting age.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, pointed out, the Electoral Commission expects to launch a number of public discussions and reviews as part of its work. There will also be extensive consultation, which we greatly welcome. The report will be followed by recommendations that the commission believes to be most appropriate resulting from its extensive consultation. We, as government, will give serious consideration to any recommendations made by the commission following its review.
	We remain neutral on the issue. I should perhaps observe that the Bill is technically deficient as drafted; for example, while providing for young people to vote at the age of 16 and thereby facilitating their eligibility, it does not include provision for their registration as electors. Therefore, it would not work. However, putting that to one side, we greatly welcome the debate that the noble Lord has stimulated by bringing forward the Bill. In a sense, we hope that the debate will form part of a wider and deeper consultation on how we encourage and improve the participation of young people in the electoral and political processes of our country.

Lord Monson: My Lords, before the Minister concludes, can he reply to my question about whether the Scottish Parliament has the powers unilaterally to alter the voting age?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my understanding is that it does not have that power.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords, who have spoken, especially those who have chosen to support me. My noble kinsman came riding to my aid in that regard, and I warmly thank him for his contribution. I must also express my thanks to the Liberal Democrat Party. I have to confess that my family, too, is a Liberal family. Indeed, the previous Lord Lucas was a Minister in a Liberal government. I should perhaps therefore repay some of my treachery by being grateful for the support of noble Lords from those Benches on this occasion.
	I take the strictures of my noble friend Lord Renton most seriously. I have listened to him over many years, and have thus been educated by him. However, I do not agree with him on this occasion. If we are putting someone in a position where he can take the responsibility of starting and bringing up a family, with all the difficult decisions that that involves as regards looking forward and considering such issues, and if we tell him that he is free to commit himself to fight and die for this country as a member of the Armed Forces, as well as taking other similar decisions, it is very hard then to say to him that voting involves taking a much more responsible and difficult decision. I believe that we should follow the consistency of our previous decisions and say that 16 is the age at which we grant this sort of responsibility.
	I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy for his elegant tour d'horizon of the issues; and, indeed, if I may put it this way, for his lack of opposition. I also thank the Minister for his response. We should not allow ourselves to be too hemmed in by the practice in other countries. This is a domestic issue. In granting responsibility and rights to 16 year-olds, we have chosen to take a particular route. Therefore, we should follow that internal consistency.
	Similarly, I am not put off by the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, on what happens in other regimes. We should be extremely grateful that 15 year-olds can vote in Iran. That has brought a measure of democracy to that country and, indeed, an interest in political radicalism. I do not believe that the 15 year-olds are the source of power for the mullahs; neither has Brazil suffered notably in its recent elections—at least from the noble Lord's point of view—from the fact that 16 year-olds are able to vote. I should be surprised if the noble Lord were to disagree with that. It does not seem to me that such parallels should be drawn in this respect.
	All in all, I have learnt a great deal from today's debate. It has given me much to consider. I look forward to the further stages of the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

High Hedges Bill [HL]

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Gardner of Parkes.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[Lord Skelmersdale in the Chair.]
	Clause 1 [Complaints to which this Act applies]:

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 1, line 7, after "of" insert "natural"

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: This is a simple seeming amendment but the issue is not simple. Light is of the greatest importance in the Bill, although we shall debate other issues of great importance to people's lives when we come to further amendments. Medically, light is known to have a major impact on health. Unavoidable loss of daylight during the winter is accepted as a cause of ill-health and a depressed state of mind. How much worse is it for hedge victims to suffer avoidable loss of light? The Bill is intended to deal with that issue.
	I do not know whether the amendment I have tabled, using the word "natural", is the right one; natural light may be too restrictive a definition. Before I go into the detail, it is important to dispel some worries and concerns people have put to me. I have received a great deal of correspondence since Second Reading. Because of the press coverage, people still do not understand that the Bill is not intended to reduce every hedge in the country to 2 metres. We must make it clear that the decision as to the height at which the hedge is retained is flexible. Only if the hedge is 2 metres or more can there be any cause for complaint. Two metres will give ground floor to ground floor privacy. It also ties in with planning law, where a wall of more than 2 metres in height would require consent.
	Other individuals are worried that treasured trees may be covered by the Bill and that their favourite tree will have to go. The Bill has nothing to do with trees. There are separate laws for trees. We must be certain that we are not dealing with individual trees. There have been legal case precedents with trees and there are other ways of resolving disputes over trees. But the law on hedges has been ineffective. It has taken 20 years to achieve success in the law courts.
	Others are concerned that levels presently agreed with their neighbours might be considered no longer appropriate and they might be forced to change them. The Bill makes it clear that there will be opportunities; if levels have been agreed that is a good precedent which should be followed.
	The aim is for hedges to be of reasonable, not oppressive height; it should be possible for them to be trimmed regularly; and they should be the sort of hedges that people would choose for a garden of a given size and which they would not consider too bad to impose on a neighbour. Light criteria on their own are not capable of defining such hedges. Light is not the only problem, but there is grave concern that the BRE guidelines for light would be inappropriate for hedges. For example, if you have a 5.25 metre hedge on a south boundary of a 15 metre garden, by mid-February 65 per cent of the garden will still be in full shade; by the end of March 50 per cent will still be in full shade; and at the summer solstice 20 per cent will remain in shade. In other words, 20 per cent of the garden is permanently shaded, but the degree of shade increases at different times of the year.
	The Bill is intended to retain light of a degree that will make life good and liveable for the people on the dull side of the hedge—as I have said before, no one ever complains if they are on the sunny side. Under the BRE standards, a north hedge at the end of a 15 metre garden would be allowed up to 14 to 15 metres high. That is no answer for anyone. A hedge at the end of a tiny 9 metre garden could be 5 to 6 metres high. That applies to all aspects other than south, because if you get all the south sun you are on the sunny side and the situation would not apply.
	If we followed the BRE guidelines on light, over one-third of people who have complained about hedges would receive no benefit at all, and two thirds would receive so little that it would not be worth their while using the Bill to seek an improvement. It is important that the question of light be determined. I hope that the Government will come forward with a more clear and positive way of determining light, not using BRE standards. I am not asking them to produce a magic answer now—there is time to consider the matter—but I would like the views of other Members of the Committee on light.
	Natural light is one thing, but diffused light, sunlight and living light are others. Natural light would mean anything except artificial light. That is why I am not terribly pleased with my amendment, but I wanted to raise this important issue, which I hope will be viewed seriously. I beg to move.

Lord Monson: I generally support the noble Baroness on the Bill, as she knows. I agree with her Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, although possibly Amendment No. 2 as modified by Amendment No. 3 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Will she clarify her assertion that trees are not included? Clause 2 seems to state that leylandii are trees.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Single treasured trees are not included. The Bill covers only two or more trees, which must be together. Individual trees, which are mostly the type that have tree preservation orders on them, are not included.

Baroness Hamwee: I support the amendment. It had not occurred to me until the noble Baroness tabled it that any light other than natural light might be the subject of the Bill and the proposed protection. As she said, sunlight falls within the category of natural light. Considerable angles are needed for properties to receive the benefit of sunlight at certain times of the year. It is normal not to have sunlight as much of the time as natural light. To restrict the provision further than natural light would not be appropriate, but the Bill should not extend to allowing artificial light to be accessed by cutting down trees. Natural light is the natural definition and understanding of the Bill's aims.

Baroness Trumpington: I have a question for my noble friend Lady Gardner. If you build a tennis court and need a background for it, in my experience you grow the quickest and tallest hedge. Will such a hedge be subject to the provisions of the Bill?

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: As always, my noble friend asks an interesting question. It depends on where the tennis court is situated. If it is next door to the window of someone's home—whether it is the ground floor or first floor—and the resident cannot see anything because the hedge is fast growing as my noble friend suggests, then yes, it would be covered. The point is the loss of light or amenity it would create for the person living in the adjoining house. If the tennis court is on the shady side, then the house on the sunny side would not be affected. If the situation were reversed and the hedge interfered with sunlight reaching the home then it would be subject to the Bill's provisions. We will come on to debate the issue of whether the word "barrier" is appropriate, but the provision would apply if the plants formed a hedge or a "barrier", as the Bill currently provides.
	My noble friend highlights another issue by pointing out that people will put in the fastest-growing type of hedge. That is the practice where things have gone so wrong. I have received letters from various people who planted leylandii hedges which were small and harmless 20 or 25 years ago but which are now 80 feet high and a menace. No one is willing to undertake the cost of dealing with those hedges.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for the stimulating debate on this issue. It is an important part of the debate that we need to have. I think that she is trying to ensure that the loss of sunlight is properly taken into account in determining a complaint. She also referred to the Building Research Establishment guidelines, which are very valuable in this context. I was extremely impressed by her understanding of how those guidelines might impact on individual cases. I think that the use of "dull" and "sunny" is helpful in that context.
	The next group of amendments will widen the debate in relation to grounds of complaint, and I shall comment further on Clause 1 then. For now, I simply say that we accept that the loss of sunlight is different from the loss of daylight. Both, however, could be determined as issues surrounding the issue of natural light. On reflection, therefore, I am not sure that Amendment No. 1 hits the mark, and I think that the noble Baroness herself has some doubts about it. Nevertheless, we accept that this is the core of the issue and we have some sympathy with the point that she is making. All I can say now is that we shall consider her comments and see whether there is some way in which the terminology can be improved. We may be able to discuss the point further.
	Therefore, although I cannot accept the amendment, we shall certainly reflect further on what has been said.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the Minister for his comments. As I said, I shall not press the amendment now. However, I think that between now and Report—which is scheduled for 28th February—there is room for discussion of many of the issues that we shall be considering today.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 1, line 7, after "light" insert ";
	2 (ii) loss of amenity, whether in the dwelling or in any garden or yard associated with the dwelling; or
	(iii) damage to any property, including damage to plants or soil"

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I have aired these issues for many years, and experience has shown the need for a definition that goes much wider than "light". I think that it should include the loss of amenity, loss of property value and loss of comfort. Someone sent me a very interesting short poem that outlines much of the problem. I shall read a part of it but not the part at the end dealing with the legislators. It states:
	"Hedge alongside our holding;
	Bane of our life. The cause of unnecessary Neighbourly strife. 25' & towering high, Ragged, unruly, It soars to the sky. Blots out the sun; Plants do not thrive! A haven for magpies With incessant chatter! They drive out the black birds Does that really matter? Songbirds and robins—all driven away; We're deprived of their song on a Midsummer's Day. Hedge roots spread at an alarming pace. Encircling underground services All over the place. Goodness me! A crack in our wall? Does that really matter at all? Our neighbour wants privacy; We'd like the sun! To slip on algae on our path, Isn't much fun! From our side The hedge is an utter disgrace: It encroaches and invades OUR private space! We used to enjoy Our garden During the evenings and days. Until we were faced with That unruly maze! I think that that covers the issues, of which we are all so aware, and all of which were raised on Second Reading. I do not need to go into them in detail now.
	The fact is that people are intimidated when trying to reach a resolution with their neighbours. They can become depressed and financially endangered by the damage done by overgrown hedges. As I have said in your Lordships' House before, I have been sent photographs of 25 metre hedges between two semi-detached houses. Although that may be difficult to believe, we have reached the point at which no one is controlling the situation. That is another reason for this Bill. I think that the amendment is self-explanatory. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 2, Amendment No. 3:
	Line 2, at beginning insert "unreasonable"

Baroness Hamwee: I have tabled this amendment because I believe that the loss of amenity can range from the very minor to the dramatic, or the other way round, and that the remedy could be disproportionate to the loss of amenity unless it is qualified, as I propose, as an "unreasonable loss of amenity". I think that it would also be appropriate to make this provision parallel to the "obstruction of light" provision mentioned elsewhere in the clause, which would also be qualified as an "unreasonable" obstruction of light.
	I am sympathetic to the point of principle here. The loss of a very near and tall group of trees, for example, is different from the loss of light. Depending on the orientation of the properties, the trees may not cause the loss of much light, but they could make the situation uncomfortable if the complainant's garden is short and the neighbouring trees are close to the boundary. As Committee members with experience of local government will know from discussions on planning applications, it is not always easy to support an argument that an application should be refused because of the effect on a neighbour's amenity. Nevertheless, I think that it would be appropriate for the Bill's provisions to mirror as closely as possible the factors that apply in consideration of planning applications.
	I have a question for the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, on Amendment No. 2. The amendment refers to,
	"damage to any property, including damage to plants or soil".
	Are not other remedies available to deal with such damage? If so, is it appropriate to extend the remedies provided by this Bill to such damage? Might not other remedies achieve some of the Bill's objectives?
	I hope that noble Baroness is sympathetic to my amendment to Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.

Lord Monson: As I indicated when speaking to Amendment No. 1, I support Amendment No. 2, but as modified by Amendment No. 3. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I am also slightly concerned about paragraph (iii) of the amendment, but for rather different reasons. It is perfectly reasonable not to qualify the word "damage" as applied to property, because property damage is serious. However, I do not think that one could really justify imposing the heavy hand of the law where slight damage to plants or soil is concerned. So perhaps the noble Baroness might contemplate at the next stage inserting the word "serious" before the second "damage" in the paragraph, so that it reads "including serious damage to plants or soil".

Lord Methuen: I support both amendments. There is reference to "loss of amenity". I should like to see loss of view included. One may well have bought one's house because of its superb view of the neighbourhood. That view can be destroyed completely by high hedges. That is an important consideration.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Taking that last point first, unfortunately I do not think that anyone has an entitlement to a view. I supported the conversion of a barn with a two-metre wall opposite my small home in Oxfordshire. I was upset to find that a three-metre wall was built which shut out my view altogether. When I drew the matter to the council's attention, retrospective planning permission was given. I would not have supported the conversion in the first instance: I would have made an issue about the two metre wall. One presumed that if the greater height were not included in the planning application the wall would be only two metres high. Through that sad experience I learned that one does not have an entitlement to a view. If I am wrong, I should, of course, be happy to include "view" in the amendment. However, I am not sure that such a right comes within planning matters.
	I should be prepared to accept "unreasonable" loss of amenity. It is a reasonable provision. However, what happens to the amendment to the amendment if I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 2? Perhaps the Deputy Chairman of Committees or the Clerk at the Table will know. No one seems to know that technicality. If the noble Baroness does not press her amendment to my amendment, I shall not then press Amendment No. 2. I am willing to bring forward an amendment to include "serious" damage to plants and soil. Perhaps we should review the wording of the amendment. I accept the noble Baroness's amendment to my amendment.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Dealing with the technical issue of the amendments, the answer is that the amendment would fall.
	I seek to be helpful. We have listened carefully to the views expressed in the debate. The general rule for the Bill is to keep matters as simple as possible. In so doing, it achieves most of its objectives. If we try to deal with every eventuality we may run into difficulties. There is a risk that the scope of complaints caught within it would be widened to such an extent that the legislation would become unwieldy and unworkable.
	As Government, we wish principally to focus on the hedge problem. Let us not forget that we have the facility to add to grounds of complaint through regulations. I know that that does not always go down well in your Lordships' House. However, it is no bad way for us to proceed in this kind of legislation.
	On property damage and the other detail in the amendment, as the noble Baroness said at Second Reading, there are well established procedures for dealing with such complaints through the courts. Intervention by the local authority under this legislation should always be seen as a last resort where no other effective remedy might exist. In addition, the complaints are not so much to do with the height of the hedge—that is the principal concern of the Bill—as about issues of liability and compensation. As well as being outside the scope of the Bill, we argue that such matters are probably best left to the courts to determine. I am not convinced that by complicating matters we shall improve the quality of the operation of the legislation. The new system envisaged through the Bill is about right.
	Subject to those comments, we shall reflect carefully on the issues raised in the amendment. In a sense, the amendment to the amendment is a lawyers' amendment, introducing "reasonableness" into the debate. It is not an unfair or wrong notion to introduce but it may further complicate matters.
	While we accept in principle that some extension of the grounds of complaint may be advisable, we do not want to go too far beyond the issues of obstruction of light. We shall give consideration to those extra grounds of complaint. It is to be hoped that on Report we can bring forward a more suitable amendment and in the interim have further discussion on the wording.
	I hope that that satisfies the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, and will persuade her and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to withdraw their amendments.

Baroness Hamwee: I shall not take up your Lordships' time by arguing whether my amendment is a lawyers' amendment or simply a commonsense amendment. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I do not think that it will make any difference whether or not I withdraw my amendment since the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, is about to withdraw her amendment. However, in order to save 30 seconds, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 3, as an amendment to Amendment No. 2, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I listened to the Minister but I am not satisfied with not including damage to property. The Minister is mistaken—between now and Report the noble Lord can check the accuracy of what I say—in saying that the height of the trees bears no relation to the damage to the property. I understand from my botany studies many years ago and my constant gardening reading now that, with the rare exception of the Australian gum tree—it is very small rooted; that is why they fall down unexpectedly so disastrously killing people—most trees have a root span relevant to their height. If the tree is tall the roots are wide. I have received documented cases from people whose drains have been broken by underground roots. I read a poem about a building cracking. The roots can be as damaging as the height of the hedge. Reduction of the height of the hedge can help with regard to extra growth of roots. It is an issue we should consider.
	I welcome the Minister's statement that the Government would be willing to widen the provision. The aim of the legislation is for people to have the right to enjoy their own homes. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Methuen: moved Amendment No. 4:
	Page 1, line 7, after "hedge" insert "or plantation of trees"

Lord Methuen: Amendments Nos. 4, 7 and 15 seek to add plantations to high hedges. My reasons for this are not to prevent the proper exploitation of commercial or other nurseries but to prevent the negligent or wilful misuse of them. I have given the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, and the Minister some photographs of a Christmas tree nursery adjacent to where I live where the owner has failed to harvest many of the trees. They are now of such a size as to make them unmarketable, being some 25 feet or more high. The occupants of the adjacent house, depicted in the photographs to which I refer, are now overwhelmed by the trees which are about 20 feet away from the front door of their house. They suffer an obstruction of light and loss of amenity quite as severe as if it had been caused by a high hedge. When they bought this house about five or six years ago, they had views of lakes and reservoirs which are adjacent to the property. Those are now totally obscured.
	My neighbours, the occupants of the house—here I must declare an interest as, although I am not currently affected by the trees, if they continue to grow, I shall be—have endeavoured to get the owner of the trees to cut or trim them without success. That is a particular case. I am sure, however, that it is not unique and that there are many other householders in a similar predicament.
	My amendments seek to rectify that situation and enable the householder to obtain an amelioration of the circumstances in a similar manner to that which applies if the problems have been caused by a high hedge, as defined in the Bill. It is not the intention to cause the wholesale destruction of the nursery.
	Amendment No. 7 defines plantations and Amendment No. 15 describes the amelioration procedure required. I should point out that if these amendments are agreed to, there would be similar consequential amendments elsewhere in the Bill which, for the Committee's convenience, I have not tabled. I beg to move.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I hope that my Amendment No. 9 will help to deal with this problem. If that is the case, the amendment we are discussing is unnecessary. However, I appreciate that whatever is blocking someone's light should be able to be tackled. To that extent, I understand and support the noble Lord's view.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: This amendment needs to be considered alongside the related Amendment No. 7 to Clause 2. Amendment No 7 seeks to define "plantation" as,
	"a group of cultivated trees . . . grown for domestic or commercial purposes whose height exceeds two metres".
	Unlike the situation with high trees, there would be no requirement for them to form a barrier or to comprise only evergreens. Overall, the effect of the amendments would be rather more draconian than the noble Lord may envisage. They would bring all planted trees, other than single specimens, within the scope of the complaints system. The Bill is predominantly designed to deal with high hedges.
	I make the simple point that the amendments lose sight of the positive benefits that trees can bring, including those that we might plant in our own gardens. After all, the right tree planted in the right place can make a significant improvement to the quality of the local environment. For that reason, the Government actively promote tree planting in both town and countryside. These amendments, if agreed, would discourage people from planting suitable trees and add to pressures to remove existing ones.
	I read the correspondence and looked at the photographs that the noble Lord provided, and I certainly appreciate that some difficulties and problems may arise. One hopes that in that specific case the difficulties can be amicably resolved. The noble Lord may want to raise some of the issues with his local authority to ascertain whether it has some powers or influence that it can bring to bear to try to reach some suitable compromise or accommodation. In general terms, bad cases, such as the one that the noble Lord mentioned, do not necessarily lead to good law being made. I always canvass care in discussing examples of that nature when considering a measure that is designed to be of general benefit.
	I certainly appreciate that neighbouring groups of trees can inflict the same misery as an overgrown hedge but I do not think that the problems associated with overgrown trees are in quite the same league as those associated with high hedges adjacent to predominantly urban or suburban homes. Although complaints about tall trees are received from time to time, I do not believe that the noble Lord's amendments necessarily constitute the right solution. There is a wider danger that in seeking to bring plantations within the scope of the Bill it may well lose the widespread support that it has, not just across political parties but also among those interested organisations, particularly local authorities, that would have to administer the system.
	I fear that the noble Lord's amendments risk losing that consensus. I have no doubt that local authorities would be rather concerned about the additional burdens that could be placed upon them if they had to deal with all tree-related complaints in the way envisaged in the amendments. Horticultural, landscape and other tree-related industries, including timber growers, may be concerned about the impact of the amendments on their business. I hope that the noble Lord will understand our reasons for not being able to support the amendments, however public spirited he may have been in tabling them. I trust that he will feel able to withdraw them.

Lord Methuen: I thank the Minister for his comments. I am not sure that my neighbours will totally agree with all his remarks but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 1 agreed to.
	Clause 2 [High hedges]:

Lord Methuen: moved Amendment No. 5:
	Page 2, line 11, leave out "evergreens" and insert "evergreen or deciduous trees"

Lord Methuen: The Bill currently defines a high hedge as one composed of evergreens, being primarily aimed at leylandii. Amendment No. 5 seeks to include deciduous hedges in the Bill. Deciduous hedges can grow to heights significantly greater than two metres and may be composed of beech or thorn trees among other species. There is a celebrated beech hedge at Meikleour, near Blairgowrie, that was planted in 1746 and is now 600 yards long and 110 feet high. Furthermore, copper beech retains its leaves until the new growth in the spring. However, I am not suggesting that the hedge at Meikleour is a problem. My amendment seeks to include in the Bill hedges formed of deciduous trees as well as evergreens. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord's amendment is admirably clear. It seeks to extend the definition of high hedges to include deciduous as well as evergreen trees. As I said in response to the noble Lord's earlier amendment, if the Bill is to be workable it is better to keep it simple and to focus it on the main problem of high hedges. I believe that there is common agreement that, notwithstanding the example that the noble Lord mentioned, evergreen hedges are the main cause for complaint.
	The amendment could also bring traditional countryside hedgerows, which cause problems to a domestic property, within the scope of the Bill. Many of us have campaigned over many long years—particularly those of us involved with local government—to encourage the return of hedgerows in the countryside. The amendment could have an adverse effect in that regard. These hedgerows tend to comprise predominantly deciduous trees and shrubs. There was some concern at Second Reading that we should avoid this and the potential conflict with our policies to promote and protect these important features of our countryside.
	Having said that, there is provision to amend the definition of a high hedge through regulation rather than primary legislation. This enables us to return to the matter if experience shows that this is necessary and that there is a problem with deciduous as well as evergreen trees. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I listened to the Minister's interesting comments. However, I believe that the amendment is more important than I had appreciated. I have received a number of letters from people who are affected by just the problem we are discussing. One correspondent wrote of his neighbour's leylandii hedge that is now 20 feet high but incorporates a young lime tree. He makes the point that all the rest of the hedge could be cut but the lime tree would be exempt. He asked his neighbour to cut down the hedge, but the neighbour had only a small amount cut off. They still have no light through their first floor windows, although the sills of the windows in that room were specifically put 4 feet 10 inches from the ground to prevent any overlooking of the neighbours. The hedge is not needed for privacy or to prevent overlooking, but it is there and it contains deciduous trees.
	I had another letter from a man about a planning application for the farmland property adjoining his, which was not granted. Someone put in a line of alders, which were very small when they were planted but are now more than 25 feet high and take away all the light to the house. The farm road on the other side is hardly used, but the trees are having a very damaging effect.
	We must be clear that we are referring only to domestically occupied areas. That covers the point that the Minister made about hedgerows. I had a helpful letter from the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, the Minister who spoke at Second Reading. He covers the point about domestic property, saying:
	"You also queried the term 'domestic property'. Under clause 3 of the Bill, this is defined as a dwelling or associated yard or garden. And dwelling means any building or part of a building occupied, or intended to be occupied, as a separate dwelling. This would exclude barns or other outbuildings that might be used for storage or purposes other than as living accommodation. It would, however, cover those cases where an affected home was temporarily unoccupied possibly because of difficulties in selling it, or in getting new tenants, because of the presence of the high neighbouring hedge".
	The Minister clearly defines the properties that would be covered by the Bill. Rural hedgerows that are not right on top of a domestically occupied property would not be affected at all by the Bill, and that point covers it.
	This is an important point. I believe that Amendment No. 9 would cover it, too. If a hedge had the effect of preventing light or amenity for the property next door, that amendment would cover it. We should consider the matter in that way. It is a question of where to amend the Bill; we might not need the word "deciduous" if we deleted "evergreen". We might simply deal with a hedge as a hedge, whether it is evergreen or deciduous. That is another way in which to consider the matter. There are various ways in which we could deal with this, either by adding "deciduous" or taking out "evergreen". The matter requires a lot of thought. Meanwhile, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment so that we can give the matter full consideration.

Lord Methuen: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, for their comments. It is certainly not my intention to destroy rural hedgerows; I am as keen on them as everybody else. However, if we simply barred leylandii, someone of evil intent could plant a beech hedge and let it grow. The point is to rethink the wording so that it includes that and avoids the situation in which leylandii could simply be replaced by beech. I shall return to the matter on Report with the co-operation of other Members of the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 6:
	Page 2, line 12, leave out paragraph (a).

Baroness Hamwee: Coupled with this amendment is Amendment No. 8; they both address the same issue. I realised when rereading the Bill after Second Reading that it is not clear what is meant by "a barrier" in this context. I have tabled the amendments in the hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, can explain that in terms that I can follow, although other Members of the Committee may not need the explanation.
	At first glance, one would expect a barrier to have something to do with restricting physical access. I doubt that that can be the case, because we are not necessarily talking about trees on a boundary. If the Bill refers to restricting a barrier to light, the point is covered by the very essence of the Bill, which is about trees that restrict light in an unreasonable fashion. The noble Baroness's amendment, Amendment No. 9, suggests that we are talking about a barrier of the nature of a fence or wall, because she uses the term,
	"fence, wall or other barrier".
	I am a little baffled about what is added by describing the trees in question as constituting a barrier, and whether there is some characteristic in them that I have not understood that would bring them within the scope of the Bill. I hope that I am not proving too tedious to other Members of the Committee in raising this, but I also hope that the noble Baroness can explain what she intends by the term. I beg to move.

Lord Monson: This could be a useful amendment, which might make Amendment No. 9 redundant. I declare an interest as a trustee of a charitable trust that owns and manages a row of alms houses. Many years ago, the owner of an adjacent property planted a row of leylandii to screen himself from the inhabitants of the alms houses. Because he failed at any stage to prune the trees, they have now grown to a height of 45 to 50 feet, totally cutting off the afternoon and, indeed, much of the morning light from the alms houses and causing them to become damp and cold.
	The irony is that the trees have totally failed in their original purpose to act as a barrier, because all the lower branches have simply dropped off, as does happen. The owner has planted a new hedge below two metres, parallel with the existing one. The original trees do not act as a barrier but they are still highly undesirable and antisocial. Amending the Bill through either Amendment No. 6, as moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, or Amendment No. 9, which stands in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, is vital to remedy the situation that I have described.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is clear that the definition would be changed by expunging references to "barrier", but it seems to us that including the idea that a hedge forms a barrier serves some useful purposes. First, it would focus attention on the dense screens that evergreens tend to create, which is the cause of complaint. Secondly, it would help to filter out complaints that have little chance of success before they reach the local authority.
	The concept of what constitutes a barrier is generally understood. It is a term in common usage. People should be able to determine for themselves whether the legislation is likely to apply to the particular potentially offending hedge that is worrying them and whether they can properly take forward their complaint to the local authority. Although I indicated in discussion of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, that the term "barrier" is open to interpretation, that will be mainly at the margins. Most cases will probably be fairly clear cut.
	Taking out the reference to the term would also lose us some benefits. We believe that there would be some serious disadvantage if the definition were pared down, in accordance with the amendment, to two or more adjacent evergreens that are more than two metres high. Members of the public and local authorities might have difficulties in interpreting "adjacent". I can see the lawyers having some fun with that terminology. How close do the evergreens need to be in order to be judged to be adjacent? We certainly lose any idea that the evergreens are integrated together to form a single unit—the concept employed by the courts in the classic neighbourhood hedge dispute, Stanton v Jones. These amendments would move us away from the typical hedge towards encompassing individual trees, and therein lies the difficulty. Given our desire for simplicity on the issue, I would not advise at this stage that we make a major leap forward as the amendment suggests. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I was interested in the noble Baroness's amendment. I had not given the matter much thought, because I had picked up the Bill—it was John Taylor's Bill in the other House—and that was the wording in it. Therefore, I had not applied my mind to the significance of the word "barrier".
	I listened to the Minister, and when he said that "barrier" was generally understood he was absolutely right. However, I received a fascinating letter that makes a number of points that we have to consider. The letter states:
	"Clause 1(1)(b) makes clear reference to the mischief at which the Bill is aimed. That is 'the unreasonable obstruction of light caused by a high hedge'".
	The writer of the letter supports the Bill, and goes on to say:
	"I also respectfully suggest that the added requirement of there being a barrier is likely to cause confusion and reduce the effectiveness of the legislation. I ask rhetorically against what is a barrier to be?".
	My correspondent also raises the most important point of all, which is that there is no definition of "barrier". Although we might believe that it is clearly understood, we apparently need to define what a barrier is, if the word is to remain in the Bill. For Amendment No. 9, it would certainly need to remain unless we found some attractive alternative. The Minister made clear all the problems that could arise if we did away with "barrier". Anyone could say, "Are these two trees close enough together?". We could get into quite a minefield. However, if we agree some satisfactory definition of "barrier" between now and Report, Amendment No. 9 might be appropriate.
	The letter states:
	"Further, when evergreens are allowed to grow to a sufficient height for them to cause material diminution in light, they may cease to be a barrier for people at the lower levels".
	That is exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, pointed out. We would have to cover not only what is a barrier, but what was a barrier. Someone might say, "Well, it is no longer a barrier because it has grown up," and sure enough there might be many spaces. One often sees that evergreens tend to lose lower branches, and all the growth is high, where it takes away light but is no longer a barrier.
	We have to define "barrier" in such a way that we are sure that it would cover even such trees that had grown past the point where they actually formed a barrier. I hope that the noble Baroness is willing to give us the benefit of her advice when we all consult on the issue of a barrier. Meanwhile, I hope that she will withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Hamwee: I very much take the point made by the correspondent quoted by the noble Baroness, which was that we should concentrate on the adverse effects caused, rather than being diverted into definitions that may go against the application of provisions on them.
	I must be one of a small minority who still does not understand the term "barrier". The discussion about a group of trees ceasing to be a barrier because of losing the lower branches confirms that we are talking about a physical barrier. However, if that physical barrier is on the other side of a wall, within the property of the owner of the trees, what does it matter whether that is a barrier, frankly? It is not a barrier to that property owner, because he can walk round the barrier of the group of trees and the fence. The more I think about it, the more confused I get.
	I was attracted to the term "a single unit", which the Minister used. That describes the notion of a number of trees comprising a single whole. Therefore, "group" or "unit" seems a less confusing way to go. I shall not pursue the point now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.]

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: moved Amendment No. 9:
	Page 2, line 18, at end insert—
	"(c) a group of evergreens is to be regarded as forming a barrier, irrespective of the existence of a fence, wall or other barrier, if the siting of the group of evergreens is such as to lead to the adverse effects mentioned in section 1(1)."

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: The reason for the amendment is quite important. The classic case took 20 years through the civil courts before the trees were reduced and was rather defeated by the fact that the person who then had to cut the hedge replanted, some metres in from their boundary, a hedge that could grow even taller than the original and do worse damage. It took many more years to get a second court decision in favour of that.
	The amendment would also solve the problem of the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, about trees growing too close to his property. What would be important would be not where the hedge was exactly—whether on the boundary line, inside it or set back—but its effect on the light. That is the criterion to which I draw attention in the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Monson: Now that Amendments Nos. 6 and 8 have been dealt with, it is all the more vital that we pay serious attention to Amendment No. 9. It is extremely necessary, if not necessarily in its present form. As I said earlier and as the noble Baroness confirmed, once the lower branches of leylandii have dropped off they cease to form a barrier, but still block off the light entirely at heights above head level. All that an unscrupulous owner has to do is erect a single-strand barbed wire fence and say, "That is my barrier. What are you complaining about?". The amendment goes a long way to addressing that problem.

Lord Methuen: I agree. The amendment goes a long way to meeting the points about my plantations. I would certainly like to give it further consideration. The particular plantation that I am thinking of is on a falling slope. The lower trees would not cause any problem, but the ones at the top would be included in the definition, so I support the amendment.

Baroness Hamwee: I am sorry to inject a slightly less positive note but, without in any way arguing with the substance of the point, is not the amendment circular? It states that,
	"a group of evergreens is . . . a barrier",
	if it leads,
	"to the adverse effects mentioned in section 1".
	That just takes us round in circles. When we reconsider the whole issue, I hope that we can consider whether that is quite the way to go about it.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The important thing about the Bill is that it considers the impact of the high hedge. That must be—dare one say it—the root of the issue. That is the point, rather than where the high hedge is situated. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, is concerned that the Bill should apply not just to boundary hedges. That is an entirely appropriate concern, and I can give her some reassurance.
	While on the issue of terminology, I accept that the term "barrier" is open to interpretation. However, it has an advantage because the local authority will have some discretion in interpretation when determining whether the Bill applies to a particular high hedge and where it is located. There will be guidance on what is a barrier. It will obviously have to reflect to some degree its location and mass. The decision in general will necessarily involve consideration of the extent to which the hedge in question acts as a barrier and its effect; its obstacle to light, access, visibility and so on.
	The Bill as currently drafted already makes the link between the hedge as a barrier and the adverse effects in Clause 1. It says nothing about boundary hedges. Clause 1 of the Bill merely requires that the hedge should be situated on "neighbouring land". It does not state where. That is effectively shorthand to describe wherever the hedge is located. So the hedge does not have to be on a boundary or even next door to one's property. It could even be—I suppose one could argue—several gardens down the road. But so long as it obstructs light to one's property and impacts upon one's quiet enjoyment of the same, one will be able to make that complaint to the local authority. That is the beauty of the simplicity of the legislation. It also draws on the advantages that the term "barrier" is open to interpretation.
	Therefore, in the classic case where one's neighbour attempts to grow another hedge well within his boundary the question of its impact will be covered by the legislation. I hope that offers the assurance that the noble Baroness seeks and that for those reasons she will feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 9.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the Minister for that reply. That is the best news today. If we can establish that it is the impact of the hedge rather than its exact siting, that is considerable progress. I shall not press the amendment today because I think it is very important that we get our wording right. However, today's Hansard will be beneficial to those affected. For that reason, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 2 agreed to.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I think this may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until after Starred Questions. Accordingly, I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.

[The Sitting was suspended from 1.33 until 3 p.m.]

Transport for London

Lord Burnham: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What authority they have over the operation of Transport for London.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the operation of Transport for London is the responsibility of the Mayor of London, not the Government. Parliament has given the mayor wide transport powers, including powers to require Transport for London to deliver his policies. However, Transport Ministers meet the mayor and the Commissioner of Transport for London from time to time to discuss matters of mutual interest.

Lord Burnham: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, I must say that he has given that reply on a number of occasions. There must come a moment at which the Government say, in reply to public opinion, that Transport for London has gone too far and that enough is enough. When is that moment?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as the Bellman said in The Hunting of the Snark,
	"What I tell you three times is true".
	If I have to tell the House 30 times, instead of three times, it is still true. The Greater London Authority Act 1999 was passed by Parliament, and it requires the mayor to produce a transport strategy outlining his policies for,
	"the promotion and encouragement of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities and services to, from and within Greater London".
	That is what devolution means.
	There are certain reserved powers, related to the strategy that the mayor produces, but they do not affect the operation of Transport for London, which is the subject of the Question.

Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend, as someone who lives just outside the congestion zone, whether he is aware than many low-paid ancillary workers are having to leave their jobs, as they will not be able to afford the congestion charge? Most of them have to arrive before there is any public transport. Is that of concern to the Government?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have, of course, read those reports. Our position on congestion charging was made clear by the Secretary of State. Any proposals for congestion charging must be workable, must ensure that adequate public transport is available—the point made by my noble friend—and must achieve public acceptance. If those conditions are achieved, the Mayor of London is within his rights in introducing congestion charging.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is clear from all the evidence that, although the introduction of congestion charges might empty central London of cars, it will create a total jam in all the areas outside the small inner area of congestion charging? In view of the fact that that is bound to have a severe effect on the ability of the emergency services to respond to a crisis and in view of the threat to the capital, will the Government persuade the mayor to put off his plans for congestion charges?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the mayor's objective in introducing congestion charging is not to empty central London but to reduce traffic in central London by 15 to 20 per cent. That would not result in the kind of congestion outside central London to which the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, refers.

Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is bizarre that a great city such as London, which has a gross domestic product equal to that of many sovereign states, should be in the hands of an inexperienced local authority? Does he also agree that, as far as London is concerned, at any rate, the experiment of devolution has not been an unqualified success?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the discontinuity in city government for London was not the responsibility of this Government but of the previous Government, who abolished the Greater London Council. If discontinuity is a disadvantage, we know where the responsibility must lie. It would be even more extraordinary if a capital city of the size and importance described by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, did not have responsibility for its own affairs.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the success of the transport strategy for London will be reflected in the results of the next elections for the assembly and mayor? The House should leave it to the electorate to decide.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have been trying for months to persuade the House not to act like an urban district council for London. I agree, of course, with my noble friend.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the Minister referred to matters of mutual interest. I hope that he will agree that one such matter, concerning London and central government, is commuter rail services. Can the Minister give us any news on how we can persuade the Strategic Rail Authority to give more attention to commuter rail services, rather than concentrating on inter-city services, as it appears to do?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is one of the issues raised at meetings between Ministers and the mayor and Transport for London. Commuter rail services go outside greater London and are, therefore, matters of ministerial responsibility.
	The accusation levelled at the Strategic Rail Authority is a little unfair. It is true that, in the early days after privatisation, the Strategic Rail Authority was content to award the franchises and then sit back. The new regime at the Strategic Rail Authority is not guilty in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, suggests. If there is an element of that, Ministers will take the matter up with the authority.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, in view of the chaos in London and the inadequacy of public transport, will the Minister itemise the reserved powers of central government to alleviate the problems? I speak as someone who travels on the Tube and, believe me, travelling on it is no pleasant experience now. There are great problems, and the Minister should tell us about the reserved powers of central government.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hoped that I had done that in response to the supplementary question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham. Section 143 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 says:
	"Where the Secretary of State considers that—
	(a) the transport strategy . . . is inconsistent with national policies relating to transport, and
	(b) the inconsistency is detrimental to an area outside Greater London,
	he may direct the Mayor to make . . . revisions".
	That does not give the Secretary of State a power of intervention over the mayor or Transport for London.

Tobacco: EU Production

Lord Dubs: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which European Union and accession countries produce tobacco, and what is the present level of common agricultural policy support for the product.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, in the EU accession countries, tobacco is produced only by Cyprus, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia. Current producer members are Italy, Greece, Spain, France, Germany, Portugal, Belgium and Austria. In the financial year ending 15th October 2002, 952 million euros were spent on EU tobacco subsidies. At current exchange rates, that is equivalent to £613 million.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, is it not the height of absurdity that we should subsidise a product that damages public health and the use of which the Government sensibly try to discourage? We should use the CAP support for tobacco to help the tobacco farmers of the EU and the accession countries to produce more worthwhile products.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I entirely agree. The United Kingdom has advocated the end of the tobacco regime for many years. However, the list of existing producer member states indicates that there is no blocking minority to stop the continuation of that regime. I hope that, in the review of the common agricultural policy to be carried out over the next few years, the tobacco regime will disappear and that any support for that area will be directed towards the ends suggested by my noble friend.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is this not a perfect example of what is wrong with the EU? We spend £600 million a year subsidising tobacco and take £1 million from Bernie Ecclestone, agreeing not to ban advertising. He then gets his bribe back, and advertising is banned. That is totally crazy. It is Cloud-cuckoo-land. We have not been able to change it for 20 years.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not entirely clear of the question. I agree with the first part of the noble Earl's comment. One of the main failings of the common agricultural policy is that it is very difficult to change in the light of developing science and developing public anxiety. Nevertheless, the position of the United Kingdom government throughout those 20 years has been to change the CAP radically and phase it out.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, would the Minister explain why the UK Government representative abstained in a vote on 19th March 2002 which has resulted in the continued subsidisation of tobacco growing in the EU? Was that voting action taken by the UK Government as a result of a trade-off in another sector of the CAP?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the proposition at that time was the extension of rates of subsidy, not continuation of the regime. The rates were voted on by the majority of that council. Whichever way the United Kingdom voted would not have ended this unfortunate regime.

Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that before I became—

Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords—

Noble Lords: Cross Bench!

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, perhaps we may hear the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, first, immediately followed by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce.

Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that before I became a respectable Member of this House I was responsible, for some years, for this regime? Therefore, I know quite a lot about it. It is a clearly indefensible regime. However, is the Minister aware that we must decide the best way of correcting it? I ask the Minister whether the best way of correcting it is to differentiate between the areas where there are alternative crops, where it can be simply phased out, and those areas where there are not alternative crops where perhaps some payment of a social kind might be justified?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, that I have never held him personally responsible for this regime. Unfortunately, he was lumbered with it, as the rest of us are. If we take a rational approach to this, it is certainly true that some form of social or regional subsidy could be directed at areas such as northern Greece which are dependent on tobacco. Other areas could be given over to more beneficial forms of agriculture.

Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware of the fact that this entire tobacco scheme presently in force has been fraudulent from the beginning? It has been fraudulent in regard to claims; fraudulent in regard to the areas covered; and fraudulent in amount. When will Her Majesty's Government really put their feet behind a move to boot out this entire fraudulent regime—the existence of which is well known, but well hidden, by the Commission itself?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the United Kingdom Government are behind any move to phase out this regime. As far as fraud is concerned, historically there has been very substantial fraud in this regime. Much of the fraud was tackled by the reforms introduced in 1992. I am not saying that fraud has been entirely eliminated but it did make a big difference to the level of fraud.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, will my noble friend say what the Government could do not just to be behind but to be in front of any move to abandon the regime? Is it not true that European taxpayers are spending £613 million a year to subsidise the product that kills half a million European Union taxpayers/citizens every year? Is there not an opportunity, in the light of the strains that the accession countries' rural economies will put on the CAP, for using that as a way of abandoning and replacing, where necessary with social payments, a regime that does no good to anyone except producers and a lot of harm to many others?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, my noble friend is clearly right in much of what she says. The pressures on the CAP give us another opportunity to try to get rid of this regime. The more immediate opportunity is that there is a review of the whole regime due to report within the next few weeks. That will be the immediate period where we can do what she suggests—namely, take the lead in arguing for its total demise.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, will the Minister explain to his noble friend Lady Hayman that we have absolutely no chance? He has explained himself; it is for 20 years now that we have tried to reform the regime. We have had absolutely no success. We continue to be outvoted. What is the answer? Should we not leave the common agricultural policy altogether?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, is right if this issue is regarded in isolation from all the other pressures on the CAP. There are huge budgetary pressures, WTO pressures, and public opinion pressures which will draw out some form of very radical reform of the CAP as a whole during the next few years. That is what we are currently engaged in. It is to be hoped that the tobacco regime will be eliminated as a result.

Armed Forces Communication Systems

The Earl of Onslow: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether communication systems within the Armed Forces are operating satisfactorily.

Lord Bach: My Lords, yes. Our current capabilities are fit for purpose—as demonstrated in recent exercises and operations. We need further to develop our communications capabilities to exploit advances in technology and to enable networked capabilities.
	To this end, we have in place a comprehensive programme of investment. Bowman will enter service progressively from 2004, as the Clansman system is phased out. The Skynet 5 military satellite communication system will enter service from the middle of the decade.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Bowman system, as mounted in tanks and armoured cars at present, gets hot, burns out and needs to be changed at rear level even in English winter conditions? Therefore, how is the system not going to burn out in the Iraqi desert? Is the noble Lord aware that regiments earmarked for the Iraqi campaign are now loading up their lorry parks with more Bowmans so that when they burn out, which they inevitably will, they can change them?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I think that the noble Earl inadvertently said Bowman, but I think he means Clansman. I shall answer the question accordingly. There are, of course, problems operating any radio equipment in hot desert environments—not just for Clansman. Clansman continues to perform as required and, of course, will be replaced by the highly capable Bowman system from 2004 onwards—a programme that continues to make excellent progress.
	As I mentioned to the House before the Christmas Recess, a number of urgent operational requirements are currently being procured, including communication systems. For obvious reasons, I am not prepared to help any possible adversary by going into any more detail on the specific capabilities.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall the communications problems that arose in operations in former Yugoslavia which were raised in this House at the time? Does he agree that it is essential that the British Army has systems which are strong and reliable, especially when hostile transmitters are creating interference on the airwaves?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord. Of course we are determined that that will be the position if and when our troops have to engage in warfare.

Lord Methuen: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that the new Bowman system will not only provide communications between military units but also with the other services and, in particular, aircraft?

Lord Bach: My Lords, yes, I can confirm that. The Bowman system will be an excellent system. I must say that it has had a rather long and tortuous history until now. If it had not been for my noble friend Lady Symons, when she held the position that I hold now, we might still not know when Bowman would be coming into operation.

Lord Vivian: My Lords, last Tuesday, the Secretary of State in another place gave the assurance that Her Majesty's Government are working on a process of ensuring that combat identification is dealt with satisfactorily. Will the Minister tell us what new equipment will be available in time for any potential conflict in the Gulf and confirm that these IFF systems will be fitted to all armoured vehicles?

Lord Bach: My Lords, before answering the noble Lord's question, I know that I speak for the whole House when I welcome him back to his rightful place on the Front Bench. I look forward to facing his questions over the next weeks and months. I do not want to make my welcome too effusive in case I am mistaken.
	As regards his important question, we take combat identification and the risk of friendly fire extremely seriously, as does he. Lives depend on it. We believe that our combat identification procedures are effective. We have deployed successfully as a country on many operations since the tragedies in this field during the Gulf conflict. There have been no reported incidents of what is described as fratricide, or blue on blue, involving UK forces. I say that with caution because whatever technology one puts in and however sophisticated it may be, these things sometimes happen.
	In the event of military action, British troops will be fully interoperable with United States troops for combat identification. That capability, including new equipment options, are currently being procured.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, how can the Government contemplate committing British troops to action with armoured vehicles which are fitted with Clansman when Clansman is, first, unreliable and, secondly and more important, insecure in two crucial respects: it lacks digital encryption and the frequency-hopping capability which prevents enemy forces from tracking and attacking vehicles? Do the Government recognise that, if our troops are committed to the Gulf and there were to be casualties as a result of the inaccuracies of Clansman, Her Majesty's Government would bear a grave responsibility?

Lord Bach: My Lords, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord and to the House that of course we are not going to send Armed Forces, if it comes to that, anywhere in the world unless there are proper communications which are as safe as possible. Urgent operational requirements are in line and items are being procured as we speak in order to ensure that the communications system works as well as can be expected.

Cricket World Cup

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What representations they are making to the International Cricket Council to move the forthcoming World Cup matches scheduled for Zimbabwe to South Africa.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, Foreign and Commonwealth officials in London and Harare advised the ICC of the deteriorating humanitarian, political and economic situation in Zimbabwe. We have also made our views clear to the England and Wales Cricket Board. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my honourable friend the Sports Minister and I met officials from the ECB earlier today. We repeated our view that the final decision on whether to play the England fixture in Zimbabwe on 13th February must be taken by the ECB and the ICC but that it was the view of Ministers that the match should not go ahead in Zimbabwe.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply and appreciate the effort she made today in attempting to persuade the ECB not to go ahead with the game in Zimbabwe on 13th February. I also believe that the Government are right to refuse to pay compensation to the ECB for cancellation of that match as it should never have been arranged in the first place.
	Does my noble friend agree that this is a moral issue comparable to that applied in the case of sporting contact with apartheid South Africa where a boycott and international isolation substantially helped to deliver political change and human rights? Is it not wholly deplorable that the ICC should concern itself with security issues and not consider the view of informed Zimbabwe opinion, which is that cricket should not be played in the country where the President has seized power illegally and where half the population are starving as a result of his repressive policies?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I believe that noble Lords in this House are clear about the Government's view of the Government of Zimbabwe. They are facing a humanitarian crisis; nearly half the population requires food aid; there is large-scale economic mismanagement; and there were food riots on 4th and 5th of this month. We hope that the ECB and the ICC will take that into account. Our role is to give them that information and advice, and we have done that.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a party of Zimbabwean athletes came to the Commonwealth Games in this country? What would the reaction of Her Majesty's Government be to the Zimbabwean cricket team coming to this country next year to play a series of test matches with our cricketers?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, this is about the situation in Zimbabwe. We would have no problem with the Zimbabwean cricket team coming to the United Kingdom.

Lord Blaker: My Lords, if the Government had expressed their views clearly more than a year ago when the conditions in Zimbabwe were almost catastrophic and almost as bad as they are now, would they not have saved many cricketers a good deal of anguish and the cricket authorities a great deal of money?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Government's position has been entirely consistent. Officials met with the ECB in July last year. We gave them the information and made it clear that we thought that the situation would deteriorate. We met members of the ICC in November. Our High Commissioner in Harare met members of the ICC in Harare when they made a fact-finding visit. There has been no change in our position.

Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I wonder whether this morning the noble Baroness and Members of your Lordships' House heard the Secretary of State for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Tessa Jowell, speaking on BBC Five Live. The reaction in my household—and I dare say that it was shared in other households—was that the Government, through no fault of the right honourable lady, was transmitting a lack of leadership to the country. There is no substitute for leadership in a situation such as this—certainly not a mixture of rhetoric, moralising and spin. Why cannot the Government now come out and say that they are dealing with a totally reprehensible and despotic government of an African state which does not discriminate between white and black and which is a serious threat to British interests; that therefore, all people in this country who are involved culturally, commercially and in sport should be prepared to make sacrifices in order to lessen their communications with the military regime, thus allowing the Government to "get on with it"? If the Government were to do it even-handedly like that, they would have no problem with the ECB.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I believe that this Government have been absolutely clear on the matter and it might bear repeating in this House. We have made it clear that the imposition of wider economic sanction which would damage the ordinary person in Zimbabwe is not a route down which we would want to go. That is why, with our European Union partners, we have targeted sanctions against the elite. We have made the details of the deteriorating humanitarian, security, political and economic situation clear to the ECB and ICC. The decision is theirs. To look to the Government to make a decision which should be made by the ruling and governing bodies of cricket is reprehensible.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, will the noble Baroness ensure that a copy of the minute of the meeting of last July to which she referred is placed in the Library? I understand that only today the English and Welsh Cricketing Board received a copy of that minute. It is that minute which is now being interpreted by the Government as an indication by officials of what Government Ministers' thinking might be when they came to consider the match in Harare.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the House will be aware that notes are taken at every meeting between officials and outside organisations. The notes are confidential to those organisations and to the department. That is the basis on which the meeting went ahead and therefore I cannot make a commitment to place a copy of the minutes in the Library of the House. I am happy to go back and talk to the ECB about whether or not it is prepared to allow the minutes of the meeting to be made public.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, is not the truth of the matter that the Government refused to do anything until the Secretary of State for International Development, encouraged by the Foreign Secretary, spoke out against the playing of cricket in Zimbabwe as it would be seen to be supporting the Mugabe regime?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Baroness's information is entirely inaccurate. The ICC published its report following its visit to Zimbabwe on 16th December; my honourable friend, Mike O'Brien, a Minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, replied to a debate in Westminster Hall on 17th December and made his view as the Minister quite clear.

High Hedges Bill [HL]

House again in Committee.
	Clause 3 [Domestic property]:

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: moved Amendment No. 10:
	Page 2, line 25, at end insert "but does not mean any building or part of a building in commercial use"

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: The wording of the amendment is self-explanatory: it seeks to create a different situation where a building is in commercial use.
	Let me outline the reason for the amendment. I received a letter on this subject from a man who bought a house in which a hedge was planted in the garden. I do not know whether or not it was a leylandii, but a typical hedge. The man who sold the house to him has since bought the pub next door. The hedge is a lifeline to the man in the domestic property because the pub is very noisy. However, the man who now owns the pub—the former owner of the house—has said, "I intend to make your life impossible. If the Bill goes through, I shall have that hedge down. That will make your property worth nothing. I shall then be able to buy it back and join it on to the pub that I now own".
	It is a rather nasty story which has made me appreciate that it could make a significant difference for a neighbour to have some kind of protection from a hedge between noisy commercial premises—which could be a bar or any other premises which have loud entertainment—and his residence. It has a certain merit. I therefore feel that there should be a distinction in the Bill between truly residential premises and a commercial business, which might be next door. I beg to move.

Lord Monson: I have supported all the noble Baroness's amendments so far, but I have some reservations about this one—although those reservations may disappear if, after the next stage of the Bill, the word "exclusively" is inserted before the word "commercial".
	There are many residential buildings which are also commercial for part of the time. All farmhouses, for example, are partly residential and party commercial. Many people with IT skills now work from home rather than spending hours and hours a week commuting to their place of work. So there is a danger that if the amendment as it stands is agreed to, it might unintentionally affect buildings which are partly commercial and partly residential.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Having listened to the case example, I am not sure whether or not the amendment helps. It is a neat point. But it is an interesting amendment and I shall deal with the issues that it gives rise to.
	Clearly the noble Baroness is concerned to ensure that a complaint can be brought under the Bill only if someone's residence, and any associated garden, is adversely affected, and not some kind of outbuilding. We certainly support her wish to limit the scope of the Bill in this way. I hope that I can reassure the noble Baroness that the Bill as currently drafted achieves exactly what she wants.
	Under Clause 1, a person can bring a complaint only if the reasonable enjoyment of his or her domestic property is affected. Clause 3 defines "domestic property" as a dwelling and any associated garden or yard. It defines "dwelling" as,
	"any building or part of a building occupied, or intended to be occupied, as a separate dwelling".
	So that is the definitional position.
	The amendment would mean that a complaint could not be brought in respect of a property in a residential area that is wholly occupied by, say, a dental practice; nor could someone complain if a hedge was affecting their garage, barn or outbuildings that might be used for storage or for purposes other than living accommodation.
	A property might contain a mix of domestic and commercial uses. In these circumstances, the Bill would apply to protect the living quarters from the effects of a neighbouring high hedge. So the Bill is intelligently enough drafted to assist someone occupying mixed accommodation. On most occasions the division between domestic and commercial elements will be clear—for example, the doctor's surgery that operates out of an extension to his or her home or the flat above a shop or a pub. In such cases, a complaint could be brought under the Bill only if the doctor's home or the flat over the shop or pub were adversely affected. It would be in those kind of circumstances that the Bill could be used.
	Where the boundaries between the business and living quarters are more blurred, the local authority would need to use its good sense and consider the facts of each case to determine whether the legislation should apply. We can reasonably infer from the good practice that most local authorities adopt in enforcement cases of a similar nature that they will be able to operate the law effectively in such circumstances.
	I trust that that clarification helps the noble Baroness. I hope that the case example she cited is capable of reasonable resolution. It seems that an absurd and unpleasant situation has developed. We would be very interested to see the correspondence that has ensued as a consequence.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: Perhaps I may first apologise profusely for my inability to be here this morning owing to domestic circumstances. I apologise particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, who has been stalwart in pressing these issues.
	It is appropriate that I should enter the debate on this amendment. As I understand it, the Minister said not only soothing words but intimated an understanding in the department that that which the noble Baroness seeks to achieve by her amendment is already covered either by what is meant in the Bill or is intended to be meant in the Bill.
	There is no doubt that the vast majority of people are reasonable and sensible, but we have to guard against the small minority of unreasonable and sometimes nasty people. There will be other stages of the Bill and opportunities for consultation. We also have parallel opportunities in another place in a Private Member's Bill. We are in the happy position of trawling for instances and happenstance so that we can have the benefit of a longer view than we might otherwise take.
	I support the purport of what the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, seeks. I believe that her concerns are well founded, but I am satisfied that the Minister has been helpful.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Yes, I agree that the Minister has been most helpful. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Graham, in his place. He has long taken a great interest in the Bill. I quite understood his absence this morning. It was impossible for him to be here as he had to take a member of his family to hospital—which superseded any Bill. I welcome the noble Lord's support in this afternoon's debate.
	The Minister's answer was most satisfactory. It is extremely valuable to have that statement on record as Hansard now carries a weight in its own right and can be used in legal disputes. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 3 agreed to.
	Clause 4 [Procedure for dealing with complaints]:

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: moved Amendment No. 11:
	Page 2, line 38, after "is" insert "malicious,"

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: In a way, the strange situation to which I referred in moving the previous amendment could almost be covered by this one; namely, that there is definitely some degree of malicious intent on the part of the person involved. I have received a considerable number of letters about malicious intent.
	I have in front of me a typical letter. A neighbour with 26 acres of land lawfully converted her only barn into a house. She then decided that she wanted to erect another barn in the hope of gaining residential planning permission, but permission was refused. Because of the refusal, she deliberately planted a leylandii hedge along the boundary of each adjoining property of the neighbours who had opposed the conversion. This was specifically done as a pay-back for objections to the planning permission. Without doubt there was malicious intent.
	I referred earlier to the case of the man who planted alder trees. The case is similar: he had applied for planning permission. I do not think that his intention was deliberately to upset the neighbours, but he planted a hedge of alders where he had hoped to obtain planning permission for the entrance to his barn. He assured the neighbours that he would not allow the trees to grow more than five feet tall. But when he did not obtain planning permission for residential occupation, he ignored the trees. I said this morning that they had grown to 25 feet; I now see that his letter states that they are 35 feet high and causing great problems. The trees merely adjoin farmland and are of no benefit to the farmer, but they are a terrible disbenefit to the owner of the residential property.
	In the first case, an interesting point was made in the letter. I quote:
	"Worse still I have a six feet high beautiful hawthorn hedge bordering my house and her field and we are about a hundred metres between each other so not very close, but she still planted this Leylandii hedge only ½ a meter from this 200 year old hawthorn hedge. Her Leylandii hedge will eventually kill off this beautiful and irreplaceable hedge".
	So there would certainly seem to be no friendly intent. I think that we should all be concerned at the loss of any hedgerows, and the 200 year-old hawthorn must surely be a hedgerow. It is a great pity.
	The point is important. In reply to my remarks at Second Reading, the Minister considered that we should not use the term "malicious" in the appeals section. But I believe it appropriate to use the term in regard to the council determination. The local council would rapidly be able to assess whether a complaint was genuine or whether someone was merely out to be spiteful and difficult. For that reason, the amendment has significance. I beg to move.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: I support the amendment. It may well appear to be the result of an oversight, but the noble Baroness reminds us that it arises out of remarks at Second Reading. In my experience, from correspondence and from speaking to many such people—who on one occasion held a lobby in this House—we may raise the question of whether an instance is malicious, frivolous or vexatious, but the sad fact is that many of the cases brought to our attention fall into the "malicious" category rather than into the other two categories.
	I am satisfied that where local authority arboriculturists or environmental health officers finally face up to the neighbour who may be acting in an unfriendly manner, cases that are "vexatious" or "frivolous" can be resolved fairly quickly. But the power to deal with what is seen as "malicious"—that is, having a deliberate intent to harm—would be better placed on the face of the Bill.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Through these amendments the noble Baroness seeks to deal with complaints that have an element of malevolence. We fully understand the reasons for bringing forward the amendments. Far-fetched though it may seem, I am sure that there have been horrific cases where people have planted hedges with the sole intention of inflicting misery on others. The noble Baroness gave a very good example.
	I have in front of me an example from the programme "Neighbours from Hell". Apparently, the couple concerned and other local residents objected to a planning application by their neighbour, in consequence of which a hedge was planted only a few feet away from the windows on all three sides of their bungalow. The pattern of land ownership was somewhat unusual, but the case illustrates the lengths to which some people will go to be unpleasant to those with whom they share common boundaries. The noble Baroness raised this issue at Second Reading and gave very good examples. While these extremes are undoubtedly rare, they are very real for some people and they can cause great distress.
	The vast majority of such disputes arise through nothing more sinister than ignorance of just how fast and high a hedge can grow. We wonder generally how far the amendments will be necessary or required. We also wonder whether they are workable. We should, after all, be asking local authorities to make a judgment about what stimulates people, what their actual intentions are. Given the long history attached to some hedge disputes—they can continue for many years—it will be very difficult in some circumstances to isolate the facts, particularly in the case of a hedge that may have been planted some years earlier, and to determine the intent behind its planting. That area could be extremely difficult. In that instance one would have to deal with a possible change of ownership and decide to whose intent the judgment should apply.
	A further problem is that it is unlikely that most people—perhaps only in the rare cases that the noble Baroness has managed to cite—will admit to their motives, their original sin, as it were. In most cases people are hardly likely to own up to planting a hedge in order to take revenge or to force a neighbour out because of objection to a planning application. They would be more likely to say that they had planted the hedge to protect their privacy and perhaps prevent their neighbour's activities from intruding on them.
	In such circumstances it would be very hard for the local authority to prove intent. Reflecting on my own local government experience where, as the local ward member, I was frequently called upon to mediate, it was always difficult to get to the bottom of disputes between neighbours, particularly over boundary matters. So, as well as the difficulties in proving malevolent intent, I am not sure that personal matters have a place in this legislation. I argued earlier for simplicity. It is certainly our belief that simplicity will make this legislation more effective.
	It is intended that the Bill should take the heat out of hedge disputes by local authorities acting as independent third parties in examining issues as objectively and dispassionately as they can. Our view is that local authorities should be left to weigh the facts of each case in a fair and impartial manner, unencumbered by questions of the different and varying motivations of the parties involved.
	For those reasons, although we understand the spirit and intent behind the amendment, we do not believe that it would be helpful at this stage to include a specific provision on the face of the Bill to deal with alleged vindictiveness.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the Minister for his comment. He says that the amendment introduces a judgmental element, and I agree. I have considerable correspondence from people who think that the introduction of that element would be an advantage. Local authorities are used to dealing with such situations, so it is not significant.
	The point about the date of the planting of the hedge, which is dealt with in my amendment, Amendment No. 14, to which I also speak now, is a two-edged sword. Some write that they do not want a hedge, but if it has been there for more than a certain amount of time, it is "set in stone" and nothing can be done. Others say that the date is significant if the hedge was planted immediately after a planning refusal, for example. That was my initial thought when tabling the amendment. The Hedgeline group says in its note that real malicious intent from the outset is rarer. It is usually a by-product of another quarrel; for example, the victim has opposed a planning application at an earlier time. So, apparently, planning applications are one of the big reasons why people take vindictive action. There is a place for a provision relating to malicious intent.
	I wish to correct my statement about the Minister's letter to me. I have now checked the exact wording. He said that he thought "frivolous and vexatious" should not be added to the appeal procedure, but that we had not discussed the word "malicious" at that time. I am prepared to accept that. The word "malicious" should not be applied to appeal, but I still strongly believe that it should apply to the original council reasoning. I hope that between now and Report stage I can convince the Minister that there is some merit in that.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: Before the noble Baroness sits down, the Minister said that it would not be helpful to insert the word "malicious". We are trying to read the significance of this because, ultimately, we not only want the Minister to oppose, we want him tacitly to support, legislation from here. When he says that it would not be helpful, is that a coded way of saying that he would prefer that the word were not there? Although the case for it has been made, a Bill without that word is better than no Bill at all.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I shall have to ask the Minister to comment. If it is a coded message, it is not one that I understand.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I try not to speak in code. We take the view that it would not be helpful and that in some circumstances it could be counterproductive. It would probably put local authorities in a difficult position when reaching a conclusion because it would have to take into account the intent behind planting the hedge at a particular time and place. As I said, simplicity is the order of the hour in this Bill. We would prefer to have clear and simple legislation that did not force local authorities to judge the intention behind an action.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the Minister for that remark. I understand exactly the point by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that we would rather have a Bill than no Bill, provided that it is not so damaging to the interests of those adversely affected by hedges as to be worthless. I believe that it is the Government's honest intention to enact a worthwhile Bill. There is time for discussion on the matter between now and Report stage. Perhaps I can convince the Government that the word "malicious" is good; perhaps they can convince me that it is not desirable and would be counterproductive. We will continue from there. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: moved Amendment No. 12:
	Page 2, line 38, at end insert—
	"( ) that the complainant has not notified the person referred to in section 1(1)(b) against whom the complaint is being made,"

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I tabled this amendment at the last moment because of letters I have received. We discussed at Second Reading the desire for mediation. It is desirable, and, if we can see that agreement is reached between neighbours, so much the better.
	I received a letter from an elderly couple whose neighbour, when they approached him, told them that he intended to be a very bad neighbour. He said that he had no intention of doing anything whatever to help them and that if they came near him again—he did not say, "I'll knock your head off", but that was the tone. The elderly couple felt intimidated. They said that at over 80 years old, they felt unable to face such a situation again.
	It is important to note the law as highlighted in Delaware Mansions Ltd v Westminster City Council, where a judgment was made against the council because it had failed to respond to the notice served to request that the growth of the tree be controlled. I outlined at Second Reading the eventual £1 million cost incurred by contrast to the original cost of £14,000. The House of Lords ruled in that case that it was essential that one notified the neighbour of the problem.
	So, it is no good if the elderly couple do not even tell their neighbour. They must have some official way of giving notification. But where people feel threatened, they should not have to attempt to meet or mediate with their neighbour unless he indicates a willingness to do so. For that reason, I considered that anyone could comply with an obligation to notify the neighbour, because it could be done by recorded delivery, registered post or in some way that did not endanger the person notifying, yet it would satisfy the council that the person being complained against was at least aware of the problem. That is the basis for Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: My Amendment No. 13 is in the same group. It would give the authority a clear right to postpone a decision in order to allow for mediation. The words used are,
	"capable of resolution by other means";
	in other words, other than through its procedures. That may be implicit, but in case it is not I wish it to be understood that there is a considerable role for mediation. Local authorities will not necessarily relish having to carry out that role. They, rightly, say that they are not resourced to undertake such measures; however, I dare say that planning departments have much experience of it. I hope that the noble Baroness can agree the principle, if not the method, of dealing with it. I wish to ensure that it is understood that mediation can be attempted before choosing the nuclear option.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: This is an interesting point because from what I have read and seen I am well aware that although people may not have been terrorised, they are nevertheless frightened. They may be timid and frail, and do not like to draw neighbours' attention to a detriment to their property. However, if we are to engage local authorities to spend money and time in dealing with the problem, they ought to realise—and ought to be able to realise—that the simple procedure of asking for the hurt to be remedied by the offending neighbour has at least been attempted.
	I repeat my own illustration. I bought my house which had next to it a hedge of about 20 to 25 feet in height. I spoke to my neighbour and asked what had happened. He said that the previous person went to see the owner and came away with a flea in his ear. The matter had been left. When this debate arose two or three years ago, I said I would do exactly what the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, suggests. I went to see my neighbour and found that he was a new owner and that he was unaware that there was any feeling on my part that the height of the hedge should be reduced. As soon as I raised the matter with him he said that he was very sorry and that he did not realise the problem. He said that he bought the house and the hedge, but now that the issue had been drawn to his attention he would reduce the height of the hedge to an acceptable and satisfactory height at his own expense, which he did.
	Therefore, before involving the panoply of the law, I believe that the onus should be on the complainant to prove that he has taken some steps to try to resolve the matter. He should not simply say that he had been told by somebody that it is no good visiting the neighbour. The amendments are well worth the Minister's consideration and are acceptable because they improve the true intent of the Bill.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: We have great sympathy with the noble Baroness's point that there should be a requirement for information to be supplied to the occupier of the land where the hedge is growing before the local authority considers a complaint. In our view those seeking to make a complaint should have taken all reasonable steps to resolve the dispute by negotiation. Under those circumstances I believe that the local authority would probably be within its rights to reject the complaint if such reasonable steps had not been taken. There should, first, have been some dialogue with the hedge owner which should have ended with the complainant saying that he was not satisfied and that he intended to use the statutory complaints procedure.
	As a matter of courtesy, I also agree that the complainant should inform the hedge owner when lodging the complaint with the local authority, perhaps by sending him a copy of the complaint. At any event in these circumstances it is the Government's intention to publish a leaflet for members of the public to understand how the complaints system will work when established under the legislation. We would want to include advice within that leaflet about the notification process as regards the owners of hedges. It seems to us that putting that information into an explanatory leaflet is better for the purpose of placing a message rather than to include it on the face of the Bill. We believe that that would be a more effective way of dealing with the matter.
	That brings me to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that the local authority should have the facility to reject a complaint if a complainant has not, at the first instance, put the person complained about on notice. We believe that it is best that mediation and dispute resolution is tried first. It would be our expectation that that would be the normal run of events. It is our intention to publish information in the form of a leaflet initially rather than having it set out on the face of the Bill, which we do not believe is necessary. We shall be able to consult the local authorities on the content and design, which deals with the point more effectively than placing it within the body of the legislation itself.

Baroness Hamwee: I believe that we are all agreed on the best way of going about these matters. My concern was the rather more technical one of being assured that the local authority had the power to postpone taking a decision; in other words, not to be upholding or rejecting the complaint, but postponing it to allow mediation. Mine is quite a narrow point.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Baroness is right in that it is a narrower point. Under Clause 4(2)(a) local authorities already have powers not to proceed with complaints if they consider that the complainant has failed to take all reasonable steps to resolve the dispute amicably. So we believe that the provision is already there. That will enable the authority to refer the parties to mediation, which we believe works very well. Statistics tell me that there is a success rate of 85 per cent in cases where mediation is invoked. Our expectation is that that would happen first. In any event, Clause 4(2)(a) provides for that. We believe that that point is satisfied and has a bearing on the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I have listened with quite a degree of interest. I understand the technical basis of the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I am very much in favour of mediation. I have no problem with the principle of mediation or of a council deferring a decision for the purpose of mediation.
	I have tabled my amendment for a narrow reason: that in situations where mediation is absolutely impossible there should be at least a minimum requirement on the party concerned to notify the person complained against. I do not believe that that is at all unreasonable. The council would find itself in difficulty if it approached the neighbour and said that it had received a complaint from a neighbour, and the neighbour replied to the effect that no one had told him that there had been a complaint about the hedge. Yet the reason for not telling might have been that the complainant was too frightened to approach the neighbour who had been unfriendly about other issues.
	I had a very unfortunate case in the West Country. A hedge was causing great damage. The woman concerned believed that it caused her husband to die from a heart attack, but I do not know whether or not that is true. He died after a great period of worry about the hedge. When she read the Delaware Mansions case and that one had to notify the neighbour if one is unhappy in order to take legal action under the present law, she notified the neighbour. She received a letter from his solicitor to say that if she attempted to contact his client in any way whatever he would take further legal action against her for harassment. All this occurred to a woman aged over 80 years.
	I told her that she should take up the matter with the Law Society because I considered it scandalous for any solicitor to send a letter of that intimidatory nature. She took it up with the society but got nowhere. She was told that the solicitor was entitled to defend his client. However, the position became worse because the offending person said that he would sue the complainant for damaging the resale value of his property. It was up for sale and he had to disclose that he had a letter of complaint from a neighbour which therefore reduced the resale value.
	Cases exist which are quite worrying and frightening to people. So there should be the ultimate fallback for a complainant of not having to prove that he has taken all reasonable steps, because what would those be when he has approached a neighbour and been told that he is harassing the neighbour? That puts the person attempting to mediate in an impossible position. If there is the fallback position that at the very least the complainant must have notified the neighbour of the complaint, then, as in the judgment of the court in the case to which I have referred, the neighbour could not plead that he was unaware of the problem. That is why I wanted to include that point.
	The Minister should look at this and consider whether or not it would be a desirable addition to the Bill. I am sure that there are many more cases than the ones about which I have heard. In the mean time, I should like to reconsider and further discuss the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.]
	Clause 4 agreed to.
	Clause 5 [Remedial notices]:
	[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: moved Amendment No. 16:
	Page 4, line 41, at end insert—
	"(9) For the avoidance of doubt, a remedial order under this Act shall override any tree preservation order or any preservation order imposed under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8)."

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: The main reason for bringing forward this amendment was the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Walker of Doncaster, in the Second Reading debate, in the gap. The noble Lord mentioned the fact that it can be extremely difficult for people living in conservation areas to maintain their own hedges. People living in a conservation area have to notify the council of their intention to cut a hedge. Thereafter, they have to allow a certain amount of time to elapse before they can proceed to cut their own hedge. The noble Lord is keen to have some provision that will entitle people living in conservation areas to maintain and trim their own hedges. It is quite customary in this country for people to trim, tidy, and maintain their hedges. Therefore, it is not a good idea to impose difficulties upon them in so doing.
	Further, if the council makes an enforcement order that a hedge should be cut to, say, three or four metres—or whatever measurement is determined—the decision has to be made as to which process takes precedence: the preservation order that might apply to the area, or the conservation order that is applicable to a larger area. The amendment would make clear that this hedge Bill would override any of the other orders relating to the conservation of trees, or hedges. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: We may well be able to offer some reassurance to the noble Baroness on the points that she has raised. Section 198(6)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 states that a tree preservation order does not apply,
	"to the cutting down, uprooting, topping or lopping of trees in compliance with any obligations imposed by or under an Act of Parliament".
	That rather broad statement means that remedial notices served, or issued, under this Bill would automatically override the requirements of a tree preservation order. Consequently, there is no need to clarify that point on the face of the Bill.
	A similar exemption applies where a remedial notice is issued in respect of trees in a conservation area. The relevant provision can be found in Regulation 10 of the Town and Country Planning (Trees) Regulations 1999. This does not mean that a local amenity is unimportant; indeed, far from it. Clause 4(4) of the Bill shows quite clearly that the local authority is required to "take into consideration" the extent to which a hedge contributes towards the amenity of a neighbourhood. The existence of a tree preservation order, or of a conservation area designation, will, therefore, be a material fact to a decision as to whether or not to issue a remediation notice.
	Of itself, that provision does not address the separate point raised on Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Walker, about trees in conservation areas. I believe that the noble Lord's concern was that the requirement to notify the local planning authority before carrying out works to certain trees in conservation areas could serve to discourage owners from managing their own hedges. The noble Baroness pointed out that there was a degree of conflict between the aims of her Bill and the universal controls over trees in conservation areas in planning legislation.
	However, we believe that this problem is capable of resolution. Under the tree regulations that I mentioned earlier, it is open to us to specify exemptions in the requirement to notify the planning authority of the intention to carry out works to trees in a conservation area. Therefore, it would be feasible to exempt topping or lopping of evergreen hedges as part of normal management. In our view, the issue can be best addressed in that way. The department is currently considering updating the tree regulations and implementing long-promised improvements to the tree protection regime, so we have the opportunity to introduce such an exemption. We shall consider suitable provisions in the revised regulations.
	In the meantime, it is my hope—and, I am sure, that of your Lordships—that local authorities will look favourably upon applications to prune hedges. Indeed, they would be imprudent if they did not do so. In our view, tree preservation legislation should not get in the way of effective good management practice. I trust that my remarks will be of some assistance to the noble Baroness.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the Minister for his response. It would be most helpful if an exemption for people who wish to control their own hedges could be introduced. I am sure that all these applications for permission to prune one's own hedges in conservation areas represent a burden to the planning departments of local authorities. The Minister's reply is most encouraging. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 5 agreed to.
	Clause 6 [Variation or withdrawal of remedial notices]:

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 17:
	Page 5, line 45, at end insert—
	"( ) The Secretary of State shall after consultation with representatives of local government issue guidance to local authorities with regard to the exercise of their powers and functions pursuant to this Act."

Baroness Hamwee: I noted this morning that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, referred to the need for a degree of flexibility in the application of the Bill. I accept that necessity, but I also believe that it requires some objectivity. We certainly need the assurance that local authorities will act neutrally when administering the provisions of the Bill. At the Second Reading stage the Local Government Association told me that it wanted to avoid long-winded, philosophical discussions on each and every dispute—one person's nuisance is often another person's aesthetic choice. I well understand that concern.
	It is also proper that those who are involved in a dispute should have the assurance that some common standard is being applied between different local authorities. Of course, circumstances will be different: what applies in the suburbs may not be right for the open countryside. However, while accepting that consideration, it should not be open to local authorities to take inconsistent decisions. Indeed, one would rapidly find oneself in the courts. I believe that local authorities would welcome some assistance in the broad criteria to be applied.
	I recognise that I probably should have made the amendment state that the Secretary of State "may issue guidance" rather using the word "shall", but I trust that that will not be too much of a stumbling block. I suggest, therefore, that the Secretary of State should consult representatives of local government, and issue guidance to assist them. I beg to move.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: This is a very good amendment, one that is worthy of support and inclusion in the legislation. As a result of my experience, that of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, and, indeed, of everyone else who has spoken in this Committee stage, we are all well aware that there needs to be some measure of consistency in interpreting what the Bill intends to achieve. We also need to try to sweep up the issues at the next stage. I take the view that the action on this matter has recently been ratcheted up significantly as regards both this Bill and the one in the House of Commons.
	After the decisions taken in this House in recognition of the fact that there is a need for some legislation in this respect—and, I have to say, the enormous work sympathetically carried out within the department—it would be a pity if we were to fall at the last hurdle in ensuring that people understand exactly what is involved in this issue. This amendment deals particularly with local authorities, because they will have to carry out these functions. Therefore, when the Secretary of State, the Minister, and his colleagues consider the next step to be taken, they ought to bear in mind that there are bodies such as Hedgeline that have a vested interest in the kind of provisions that will be considered.
	I must confess that while sitting here I have opened my post, which I would normally have opened first thing but I was delayed. Inside was the latest Hedgeline bulletin. It is headed,
	"We have another chance for legislation
	Hedge Law could be passed this time around".
	On the back there is a contact sheet. It is a voluntary, unaided, unpaid organisation, but it has a network of people all over the country who must have appeared out of the woodwork—but I must be careful; that is another branch of what I want to say.
	There are lots of little people who are unprotected and unarticulate, looking for someone to be their champion. In the first instance that is the Government through, I hope, aiding and abetting the passing of the law, but ultimately it is the local authority. That is how it should be. When the Minister decides to consider the matter, even on another Bill, he should take care that when the guidance is produced it goes through the hands not only of local authorities but also of those who seek to represent the people at the sharp end—that is not us.
	I mentioned Hedgeline. The department may have the addresses of other such organisations. It is better to take the opportunity to get the provisions right in the first instance than to find what local authorities think sensible becoming the subject of dispute among other people.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I support the principle behind the amendment. It is good to have guidelines and the Minister has already indicated that there will be guidelines. I support the point of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that the consultation should be wider. Hedgeline has great expertise in the subject, built up over many years, so it would be one organisation to consult, but it may be wider than that. The guidance should be issued not only to local authorities but also to the general public so that the various functions suggested by the noble Baroness can be incorporated and local authorities know their rights.
	There is a need for general guidance on the issue, so although I agree with its principle I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment and the Minister will tell us that he plans guidance in any case.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I can offer the assurance that all Members of the Committee seek. Guidance will be produced to local authorities under the legislation. I give a cast-iron assurance that there will be prior consultation, not only with local government but also with a range of interested organisations including, of course, Hedgeline. The guidance will have to take into account the determination of appeals, guidance to occupiers as to the way in which they should make their complaints on such issues as giving prior notification. All those matters will need to be covered and we shall need to consult extensively to achieve that.
	However, we believe it can be achieved without placing the guidance on a statutory footing. There will be consultation and effective guidance to all, which will be widely available to the public.

Baroness Hamwee: I was seeking such an assurance through this process. It cannot get better than a cast-iron assurance. I thank the Minister for that. He and I and the noble Lord, Lord Graham, used the term "guidance", while the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, used the term "guidelines". I think we are talking about guidance, which is something more—the Minister nods. I wanted to be clear as guidance has a firmer status. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 6 agreed to.
	Clauses 7 to 14 agreed to.
	Clause 15 [Interpretation]:

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 18:
	Page 11, line 38, after "interest" insert "for a term of not less than five years"

Baroness Hamwee: This is possibly the worst drawn amendment I have ever tabled. I realised that when drafting it, but it is a probing amendment. The Bill refers to an occupier being someone entitled to possession of land by virtue of an estate or interest in it. My amendment, which seeks to stimulate discussion, specifies:
	"for a term of not less than five years".
	At a number of points the owner or occupier is the subject or perhaps object of a provision, either as the complainant or the offending neighbour. Issues of liability are raised so that the owner or occupier may be required to take action. It raises the grounds on which an appeal may be made. Is an occupier in a different position from an owner and under what circumstances would it be reasonable for an occupier to have to undertake the cost of taking the remedial action?
	The Bill seems to allow picking and choosing between owners and occupiers. I am unclear—although guidance might assist—as to the basis for deciding whether the complaint should be directed, for instance, at the owner of the land or at someone who is occupying it on a relatively short-term basis. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Baroness admitted that this is perhaps not her best ever drawn amendment. I do not like to agree with her, but on this occasion I had better do so. It would alter the definition of an occupier if it were to require their entitlement to possess the land by virtue of an estate or interest in it for a term of not less than five years.
	The term "occupier" crops up throughout the legislation and so the amendment would have far-reaching consequences. It would mean that people on shorter-term tenancies would not be able to bring a complaint under the legislation, but would have to persuade the owner to submit it instead. If the owner refused to go to that trouble, up to five years is a long time to endure the misery of a high hedge, as I am sure Hedgeline members would testify. It could of course be for longer if someone repeatedly renewed their tenancy.
	Were the amendment applied, the owner would be responsible for complying with any remedial notice and could be prosecuted for failure to do so, even though the terms of the tenancy agreement might specify that responsibility for maintaining the hedge rests with the tenant. We could argue that that is hardly fair or equitable.
	If the property changed hands while a local authority was considering the complaint, it would be reasonable for it to ask the new occupiers of the domestic property from which the complaint originated whether they wished to continue and proceed with the matter. There are therefore administrative solutions to any problems that might be thrown up where the parties to the complaint change over time. Local authorities have powers in Clause 4 not to proceed with a complaint they consider frivolous or vexatious. That might cover, for instance, a situation where someone makes a complaint on spurious grounds just before their tenancy is due to expire.
	I am not sure that that offers any reassurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. However, I have tried to explore some of the difficulties with the amendment that I think would unnecessarily complicate the simplicity of the Bill's drafting—which, as I have said several times, is a distinct virtue.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: The amendment is interesting and has made me think about the distinction between owner and occupier. I also understand the Minister's point about one's legal obligations. However, I ask him to consider before the next stage yet another scenario—when the owner or person responsible for a given piece of land cannot be found. Rutland Gardens, for example, in central London, has a central garden which was purchased some years ago by an unknown person on the basis that he could build houses on it. However, it may have been sold to him by a very smart con man because, as everyone knows, under the Open Spaces Act, there is no way in which anyone could obtain the right to build on that site. The garden has therefore been totally neglected for many years, and Westminster Council is unable to get anyone to take action on it.
	There is another patch near the Royal Geographical Society. Although the owner's identity is known, there is great dispute about who is responsible for trimming the few bits of greenery on the land, which is much smaller than the patch in Rutland Gardens. There are many such instances.
	I know from experience of many cases in which people's electricity supply was cut off because the landlord could not be found. That situation has changed, but many cases still revolve around the need to identify and locate individuals. If someone has a hedge and the adjoining owner cannot be found, how will the Bill work for him? Will the council cut down the trees, or will people have the right to cut them down at their own expense? What will happen if they cannot find anyone on whom to serve notice? It is an interesting point. I shall read this debate. Perhaps the Minister will think about what I said and we can discuss it again at a later stage.

Baroness Hamwee: I am quite happy to reconfirm that I know how bad my amendment is, but I do not think that that is the whole issue. Clause 1(1)(b), for example, states that a complaint can be made if the complainant,
	"alleges that his reasonable enjoyment of that property is being affected by an . . . obstruction . . . caused by a high hedge situated on land owned or occupied by another person".
	Is it fair to pick and choose between the owner and occupier? The person may be both the owner and the occupier.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am not sure why the exact wording was chosen, but the wording seems to provide that flexibility. Surely the point is to serve notice on the most relevant person; either the owner or the occupier may be the most relevant person on whom to serve any number of notices. The relevant person is the one who is causing the nuisance, which takes us back to points and issues that we covered earlier. The issue is the relevancy of those involved and we should focus on that. I think that that is why the alternative wording has been provided. I may be wrong about that, but it seems a sensible way to proceed.

Baroness Hamwee: I think that that is right, but I am not sure that the Bill allows that judgment to be made. The provision on complaints—I shall reread it—does not seem to provide that scope.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I, too, will have another look at the issue. I think that we require that flexibility, and we want the provisions to be workable. We need to be certain about it.

Baroness Hamwee: We also require fairness. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 15 agreed to.
	Clauses 16 to 20 agreed to.
	House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Public Services (Disruption) Bill [HL]

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, whom I saw by chance yesterday, asked me to deal with his objections to the Bill when read for a second time, the first time around, on 22nd May, at cols. 871 to 873 of the Official Report. These were, I think, the four objections that the noble Lord had in mind: that 2001 had the lowest stoppage of all days lost in industrial disputes since 1920; that the facts did not bear out the claim that there is a new problem of the industrial sector; that the Employment Relations Act 1999 was working rather well; and that a review was due to start in June. As your Lordships' House is the only forum in which a debate such as this may now take place, in accordance with the courtesies of this House and in the interests of constructive debate, I propose to deal with the request now at the outset.
	The points taken will be dealt with broadly in my speech. However, so that the noble Lord may respond, at this stage may it be said that 2002 had more than 1.5 million days lost in all industrial disputes, occasioned in the main by disruption of public services; that that was the highest annual figure over the past 12 years; and that the percentage of working days lost on disruption of public services, as specified in Clause 3(2) of the Bill, in 1993 and 1995, was over 70 per cent of all working days lost. As to the new review in June, nothing has been seen or heard of that. In this context, the Employment Relations Act 1999 does not appear to have been working at all.
	In the debate on the Loyal Address, I took the broad point that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, had given no reasoned justification for government inaction or for government opposition to the principle of the Bill. As appears at Committee stage, on 26th June, certain misconceptions were removed as a result of discussion between the noble Lord and myself. The noble Lord will also know that the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, took the view that pursuit of an approach entailing partnership was the way forward to try to end the need to strike. That was on 18th April. The noble Lord will also know that PPP and PFI policies were the very cause of the disruption of these public services in 2002 and that that threat remains.
	There is an interest to declare. I am glad to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in his place because, after his publication of A Giant's Strength, about 35 years ago I set up a committee of Conservative lawyers—several of them sit and others have sat in your Lordships' House—on reform of trade union law. The work of that committee was only much later assimilated into the excellent framework of law by the Thatcher administration., As soon as she became leader of the party, I was asked by my noble friend Lady Thatcher to advise on such affairs; and such has been my privilege.
	There was then absolutely no need for provision to be made in a Bill such as this. The surge of militancy to set up a unicameral workers' state had by then abated only to return to bedevil this administration by resort to disruption of our public services, to oppose government policy on partnership and to unseat the government. Those are not my words: those are the words those people use. Such disruption has become a matter of most serious concern to the public, having now become an all but acceptable disorder of life which is wholly unacceptable.
	The Government have evinced a sort of Neronic attitude of ineptitude and inaction to this challenge to their very authority. As yet no political party has either proposed any effective remedial action or any amendment to the framework of law. So, at no one's behest, this Bill was drafted, prompted by interest, as ever, as one of the boys in the backroom of politics. The Bill only proscribes disruption of public services designated as such by Parliament, only at the instigation of a trade union, whether in furtherance or contemplation of a trade dispute, a dispute with government, an inter-union dispute or for any other reason, and only as a last resort if Professor Brown's silken thread of voluntary conciliation has either been declined or has failed.
	Arbitration is ordained only as a means of resolution, only as a last resort for such disputes. Proportionate disruption may be granted by the High Court if sought. Enforcement is only by the High Court and only against trade unions by sequestration and trade union officials.
	The individual entitlement of the rank and file membership to withdraw or withhold their labour under extant law is preserved. Albeit that the advisory opinion of the joint committee has not been sought, the Bill is asserted to be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights as a proportionate provision.
	The limited concept of the Bill was not borrowed from the 1996 Green Paper, which was not confined to public services and rejected mandatory arbitration. It is not borrowed from the other countries referred to in Annex 2 of that Green Paper. There is no need for us to take lessons from abroad or from any senior fellow of a Brussels think tank writing in the newspapers.
	In our country, as yet the trade unions, old Labour, have always respected the rule of law when applied by the High Court as distinct from the national industrial relations court, which they did not like—it sent six dockers to prison, released by the Court of Appeal—and which fortunately no longer exists. There is no reason whatever to suppose that respect for law as ordained by Parliament and administered by the High Court would not be observed by the trade union movement which is, after all, an essential estate of the realm.
	The Bill, applicable to disruption of public services only, could serve as a requisite safeguard for any government against "militancy of confrontation" which men such as Vic Feather and most trade union leaders could not then, and cannot now, abide. It is not an attack on old Labour. It is not an attack on the trade unions, albeit a criticism of new Labour for sheer ineptitude.
	The aspect of home affairs warrants the immediate attention of this Government, albeit that the overriding concern, having prepared for war, is the wisdom of the need for war and the well-being of our forces as yet on standby.
	Has not an urgent approach to be made now to the trade union movement to avoid the threat of massive disruption of our public services by certain public service unions, either to support a pay claim or to oppose government policy by collective industrial action? If such an approach were to be rejected, has not some effective action to be taken by Parliament—perhaps some such action as proposed by this Bill as a last resort?
	During the passage of the Bill in this form last Session—it lapsed on Prorogation—the noble Lord, Lord McNally, recognised the urgency of some such approach and the case for legislation, not as an exercise in confrontation but as an assertion of the authority of any government to govern.
	About a year ago both right honourable gentlemen the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition said that something had to be done to stem the resurgent tide of militancy among the leadership of the public service unions, as was later identified in the leader in The Times on St Valentine's Day. Over last year disruption of our public services had a severe effect on the economy. I refer to the record of days lost. The people suffered intolerable hardship, inconvenience and expense all to no constructive purpose.
	Unless and until the dispute between the leaders of these public service unions and the Government over PPP and PFI in the public services has been resolved, the threat of such disruption remains, and the deplorable state of our public services could be devastated within this very year.
	But if something has to be done, as the right honourable gentlemen say, what is to be done to safeguard these vaunted aspirations to improve our public services? What is to happen this year or next year? Are we to drift towards 2 million working days lost and to drown in yet another whirlpool of misery and discontent? Will not the people—the noble Lord, Lord McNally, made this point some time ago—one day demand, as he put it, the protection of government—some effective long-stop protection—under the rule of law? Government is the business of government; it is not the legitimate aspiration or business of any trade union. Is it not for the Government to sort out their own symbiotic relationship with the trade union movement and with old and new Labour as an immediate priority?
	I say a quick word, if I may—I have spoken for longer than 15 minutes and I apologise—about the FBU dispute over pay which inevitably involved conditions of work. Here the proposal of government to repeal Section 19 of the 1947 Act, to reduce overmanning and restrictive practices and to open up the closed shop imports an entirely new dimension which as a last resort may well be resolved only by mandatory arbitration. Fire brigade services could be designated as public services by Parliament under the Bill.
	What about the disruption of services in the North by RMT and ASLEF over Christmas over a pay dispute? That sort of thing should not be allowed to happen. We must get past that form of industrial action. A pay claim would be covered by the Bill without designation. Those claims would fall within the Bill as drafted.
	In conclusion, the purpose of this speech is to justify the Bill only in principle, not the DIY drafting. Good heavens, I am not a draftsman. The Bill is exposed on its drafting to rigorous criticism and constructive amendment—a point fairly taken by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, as one of his objections with which I have not dealt. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Campbell of Alloway.)

Lord McNally: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, mentioned, he raised this specific topic twice last year, first in an Unstarred Question on 18th April, to which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster replied, and, secondly, on a Bill on 22nd May, to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, replied.
	I think it is fair to say that on both occasions the replies from the Government Benches constituted exercises in complacency. International and historical statistics were produced to demonstrate that Britain was a haven of industrial peace; that there was no need for any forward planning and no need to worry; that the Government had accepted the bulk of the Conservative industrial relations reforms and that militant trade unionism was safely in its box. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked the House,
	"what is the problem being identified of industrial disputes in the public sector"?—[Official Report, 22/5/02; col. 871.]
	If he did not know that then, he certainly knows it now.
	I support the spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, introduced the Bill. Whether the Government's statistics on industrial disputes, historically or internationally, are favourable or unfavourable at the present time, is really irrelevant. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, identifies—we seek some sense of recognition and urgency on the part of the Government in this regard—problems with regard to the reform of our public services, the funding of our public services and the manner of settling disputes in our public services that are not fully covered by present legislation and that require government action to be resolved.
	I sincerely hope that the Minister will not be complacent tonight. The firefighters' dispute remains unresolved. The threat of militant action on the Tube remains. In trade union after trade union—the Fire Brigades Union, RMT and AMICUS—the way to guarantee election is to promise industrial militancy and hostility to new Labour. I point out to the Minister that both the General and Municipal Workers' Union and the Transport and General Workers' Union face new leadership elections.
	We ask the Government to recognise that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has made some suggestions in the Bill but I am sure that if the Government want to look for friendlier fire, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, could be quickly brought into action. He could set out options for compulsory and binding arbitration, pendulum arbitration and no strike agreements tied to long-term contracts. Many ideas have been floated for 20 years and more, as well as more radical solutions such as opening up trade unions to easier civil action for damage caused to third parties.
	But preferable to any programme of sanctions should be a genuine dialogue between the Government and both sides of industry to emphasise that the benefits of co-operation far outweigh old-style militancy and confrontation. It really would be a tragedy if, having come so far, some of those old confrontational ideas returned to the forefront of our trade union movement. I hope and wish the new general secretary of the TUC well, and hope that he continues to lead the whole trade union movement in building a 21st century role for trade unions, and not a backward-looking one. Neither the economy nor the public services can afford to see new resources for sharp end services swallowed up by inflationary wage demands.
	Today's edition of The Sun reports on a panic in the Government that the resources put into the NUS—no, not the NUS, although that may happen next Monday—into the NHS are not going into service delivery. That is the real problem about the way in which the Government have handled the welcome pumping of public expenditure into public services. That has left an inflated expectation in the public services of the money now available for wage increases. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, asked Ministers before Christmas if 40 per cent was the norm in public services. He asked whether there was in fact a norm for wage settlements in the public services. Will we find out that it is nearer 16 per cent than 3 per cent?
	It is part of the problem that the Government have approached the matter in a piecemeal and complacent way, which has given militancy its opportunity. There is no longer a feeling that the Government wish to engage in a broader dialogue with the TUC and the CBI on these matters. I may be a trifle old-fashioned, but I believe that there were many merits in the old NEDC—Neddy—approach of getting industry involved in these matters and contributing to the solutions.
	It is even difficult to find out who in government takes responsibility for these matters. I always remember Ray Gunter describing the job of industrial relations in the old Labour Ministry as a "bed of nails". Now it is left as some minor responsibility, presumably as part of the portfolio of Mr Andrew Smith, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Well, my goodness, he has enough problems on his hands with pensions without having to worry about industrial relations.
	Do the Government have any coherent view of how we will deal with those issues? That is the main point. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, asked when the Government review of the 1999 Act would be completed. Perhaps the Minister will tell us that in his reply. The last time he was asked, he told us that it was starting its work last June, so it has been going on for a good half year. Is it a purely internal review, or is it taking evidence from the TUC, the CBI and from elsewhere? When and how will it publish its findings?
	At the heart of the matter is the concern about the Government's attitude to the industrial action that causes most damage to the public rather than to the employer. That is what the public do not understand. There is a kind of secondary picketing that was not touched by the Thatcher reforms. Tube strikes do damage not the managers of London Tube but hundreds of thousands of commuters. Teachers' strikes do damage not directors of education but children, mums and parents who are trying to manage their families. Of course, the striking firefighters do not damage the fire authorities but endanger the public at large.
	Without wanting to remove the right to strike, we must get into our framework of industrial relations some way of avoiding the innocent general public being dragged into the firing line of disputes. That is something that the Government have neglected to do. On the part of new Labour, there has been none of what I would describe as post-Thatcherite thinking on industrial relations. The Government are simply willing to take the benefits of the Thatcher legislation and let sleeping dogs lie. Unfortunately, the dogs are waking up and beginning to bark. What is needed from the Government is some sense of urgency and the holistic approach that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, recommended in a debate last year.
	The Government have promised the public services £40 billion of new spending but have apparently omitted to negotiate any kind of deal for improvement of service or delivery as a price for that new expenditure. In a debate on 18th April, the noble Lord, Lord MacDonald of Tradeston, set out Government aims in terms of public services. He said that they were based on four principles:
	"higher national standards and accountability; greater devolution and delegation to the front line; increased flexibility in the sense of an end to demarcation; and, very importantly, more choice and contestability".—[Official Report, 18/4/02; cols. 1162-1163.]
	If we are to put the kind of money that the Government have promised into health, education and transport, we want that money to get through to the sharp end. If it is used to increase pay, that pay must be justified by productivity and the rest. Surely, all that should have been taken together. The Government should not have been taken by surprise, as they undoubtedly were, by the growth of new militancy in the trade union movement.
	Our call tonight is a comradely piece of advice to the Government to wake up to the fact that they cannot simply wait on events and be continually surprised. Each time they are surprised, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell emphasised, the general public have to pay the price for their lack of preparedness. In the long term, rather than giving a platform to the malcontents, they should find a way in which to produce, from good industrial relations, both benefits to the workers and benefits in terms of the public service to the public at large. That is how to bring in and embrace constructive trade unionism for the country's progress.
	In that sense, I feel that the Bill deserves a Second Reading. The matter needs a whole lot more constructive thought and a dialogue between the Government, the trade union movement and the CBI to ensure that the massive increase in public expenditure to which the Government are committed is not lost in inflationary and non-productive pay increases or frittered away in other ways that leave us with poorer public services and a deteriorating industrial relations situation.
	This is a sideshow debate—we know that—but these issues will come back to centre stage. If Ministers show again tonight the complacency that they showed last spring, it will come to haunt them in the year ahead.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I, too, like the thrust of my noble friend's Bill and I compliment him on bringing it forward at this time. I hope that the Government will give it serious consideration. After all, its purpose is,
	"to contain disruption of public services by collective industrial action".
	There are few if any who would not wish to see that objective achieved at a time when there is, first, the threat of war—and an unpopular war of uncertain duration and severity at that; secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, a new, more militant leadership of trade unions; and, thirdly, the course of the country's economy, including the affordability of increased wage demands in the context of increased spending on public services, which is very uncertain.
	Noble Lords will have guessed from those opening remarks that my approach to my noble friend's Bill is entirely contemporaneous and, I hope, pragmatic. In normal times, one would with very few exceptions argue for free collective bargaining across the board. I still believe that that is the best principle to follow. My memories and experience of the intransigent mood of the early 1970s leads me to abide by that principle. However, these are somewhat extraordinary times and the Bill refers specifically to "public services".
	We have, as has been said, already experienced the firemen's strike, which is, I hear, now threatening to flare up again. Valuable troops have been diverted from their military duties to man Green Goddesses—they did so superbly and effectively, as it so happened. However, that occasioned an entirely proper but grim warning from the Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Michael Boyce, that the Army was being over-stretched at a critical time. It appeared to me at one point that the Government might have to resort to some such restrictive measure, as my noble friend proposed in the previous Session and proposes again now.
	With all the talk of special measures to restrain the public in the event of a major terrorist attack of a chemical, biological or massively destructive nature, it is inconceivable that the principle of free collective bargaining would be allowed to operate in key public services in such circumstances. The circumstances would hardly be "free" for the public authorities concerned. The question is whether it would not be wise to anticipate such circumstances now, rather than to wait for the emergency to occur and legislate in haste. If we can judge by the media, we know that the Government are already making preparations for such emergencies. It is almost inconceivable that they are not contemplating some form of action in the sphere of employment relations. That is an inescapable question for the Government, which they should face up to and answer.
	The Prime Minister warned the nation in his New Year message of difficult and dangerous times ahead. He was thinking not only of security in terms of defence but in economic terms, too. He said:
	"I cannot recall a time when Britain was confronted simultaneously by such a range of difficult and, in some cases, dangerous problems".
	He went on to assure us that,
	"Britain is well placed to face up to them".
	Those are fine words but what exactly do they mean? What action is proposed?
	My noble friend's Bill is very clear. Clause 2 states:
	"No public service shall be disrupted by collective industrial action at the instigation of any trade union unless and until the High Court shall have adjudged that the disruption proposed is neither excessive nor disproportionate".
	The Bill goes on to define disproportionate action as,
	"collective industrial action excessive to resolution of a dispute which has occasioned or would occasion . . . substantial hardship, expense and inconvenience to the general public, or . . . substantial damage to the economy".
	I stress how impressed I was by what has been said about the effect of strikes in the public services on the public. They do not hit the employer, who is generally the taxpayer at the end of the line, but they do hurt the public.
	The Government must agree that some action is desirable and that the sort of disruptive action anticipated here is totally undesirable. My noble friend sought a remedy in the event of such disruptive action. If the Government do not like the proposed remedy, they are bound to tell us what they favour. Will they put their trust in the trade unions not to hold them and the public to ransom? Trade union leaders may pledge moderation but they will find that difficult to deliver when they are under pressure from their members.
	It may be said that there are still imperfections in the Bill, in spite of my noble friend's speech. Personally, I have never known a government Bill that did not contain imperfections that were acknowledged by the government with a host of amendments. The Minister may feel obliged to regale us with the infelicities—or at least refer to his catalogue of them—of the previous Session. We all know that the real reason for the Bill's rejection, if that is what it faces from the Government, will be the Government's belief in existing legislation, especially the Employment Relations Act 1999, and their ability to negotiate or manipulate their way to an accommodation with the trade unions. Frankly, I am not so sanguine. Some of us remember the solemn and binding agreement between a Labour government and the trade unions, which proved to be neither.
	My noble friend has done a service to the House and the country in seeking to concentrate the Government's mind on the issue of excessive and disruptive action in the context of public services. Those of us who use public services know from experience what a precarious state some of them are in—for example, the railway system. It takes little deliberate disruptive action to throw such services into total confusion and chaos. Is it right to tolerate such an open-ended situation and simply wait until the next public service union takes advantage of that at a critical time? I am sure that the Government have that on their mind. A purpose of good law is surely to anticipate events. I urge the Government to give careful consideration to my noble friend's Bill.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I start by saying, as is proper in these circumstances, that the Government do not take a view on this or any other Private Members' Bill. We shall do nothing to oppose its passage through your Lordships' House, as we did nothing to oppose it when it passed through the House in the previous Session.
	Having said that, it is only right that I should express my admiration for the persistence of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, both in introducing legislation and in instigating debate in the House on an issue which he thinks is of very great importance to this country, a view with which I agree. The last thing that I want to be accused of—and the last thing that I think I could be justly accused of—is complacency about industrial relations in this country, or indeed complacency about the issues raised by the Bill.
	Of course there are enormous problems. However, in the context of a Private Members' Bill, it is the duty of the Government's spokesman, first to examine the Bill and to consider whether it meets its set objectives, but, secondly, to examine whether the approach to the resolution of the problems identified by the noble Lords, Lord McNally, Lord Roberts and Lord Campbell, is the proper general approach.
	When we last considered the Bill at Second Reading in May of last year, I quoted the figures for 2001 for days lost and for stoppages. It is legitimate for the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, to say that the 2001 figures are no longer the most relevant ones and that we have to look at the figures for 2002, and that we must look at them in context. We do not have final figures for 2002. I cannot confirm the figure he gave. But we know that until the end of October 1.1 million days were lost in 137 stoppages for industrial disputes. That is by no means the largest for the past 12 years. There were 1.6 million days lost in 1996. But I make no particular point of that.
	The point I want to make is that there is a huge difference between those figures and the average for the 1980s of 7.2 million days lost and the average for the 1970s of 12.7 million days lost. Without making any party point about the legislation passed over the past 20 years—some by Conservative governments and some by Labour governments—it cannot be said that legislation over, for example, the past 10 years has been of particular encouragement to employment disputes.
	The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, pointed out that the majority of recent disputes have been in the public services. If 70 per cent of trade unions membership is in public sector unions, that is fairly axiomatic. There is no doubt that that will happen. The noble Lord asked me in particular—the noble Lord, Lord McNally also asked me—about the review of the Employment Relations Act 1999. We have carried on the review, as I said we would. We have been carrying out informal consultations. We shall shortly be publishing a public consultation document. If primary or secondary legislation appears to be required as a result of that consultation process, it is our intention that such legislation should be introduced in this Parliament.
	I again make the point that the Government's face is not set against legislative action which deals with problems that are raised, correctly analysed and recognised in a proper consultation process.
	Having said that, it is right that I should return to the substance of the Bill because that is what we are supposed to be debating. I made four points about the Bill last May. I am afraid that I must repeat them today because they seem to be such serious defects in the Bill that the kind of amendment introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, in Committee after 22nd May really is not adequate for the purpose.
	First, the Bill is not about strikes in the public services; it is about disruption to public services. It therefore includes any industrial action that might affect public services, whether in the private or public sectors. It is almost impossible to imagine any industrial action that would not in some way affect the public sector, even if it is in the private sector, as almost all industry and services in this country are involved with the public sector as a customer or a supplier. So the Bill is far too widely drawn in that respect.
	Secondly, the Bill is not just about strikes; it is about strikes at the instigation of a trade union. Therefore, it is only about official strikes and not wildcat or unofficial strikes. I am sure that that issue will be recognised as being a very serious defect because that makes it not just possible but likely that the provisions of the Bill would be evaded.
	Thirdly, the Bill talks about disproportionate effects on the public. That is described as action that is excessive to the needs of a resolution of a dispute. That raises huge problems of definition. Most importantly, it leaves the courts to decide what are essentially economic or political issues and not legal issues. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, as a distinguished lawyer himself, would in other circumstances be the first to resist such pressure.
	Fourthly, the Bill refers to mandatory arbitration by the Central Arbitration Committee. The whole point about the Central Arbitration Committee is that of course it protects employee's rights to strike, but it also protects an employers' right to manage. Turning the Central Arbitration Committee into the creature of a mandatory process would be a distortion of its work. There is no reference in the Bill to the work of ACAS. If any reference is made to ACAS, it will become clear that it is profoundly against compulsion.
	I know that the Social Democratic Party played with a number of alternatives, such as pendulum resolution and so on, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in his wide-ranging but not entirely relevant speech last year—which was just as wide-ranging and just as irrelevant as his speech this year—made those points. But really those alternatives are playing around with the resolution of industrial disputes and are not serious. Behind this issue must be the thoughts: yes, of course we must take action to improve industrial relations; and, yes, of course we must continue to take action to ensure that the public are protected. No one who has observed our response to the Fire Brigades dispute would be able to say that we have not taken effective action to protect the public. I was grateful for the tributes to those who manned the replacement services and the Green Goddesses. But the question must be: is the right approach in dealing with the undoubted problems which exist to criminalise industrial action by one part and not by another part of our workforce?

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. He will remember that we had an informal discussion in amity on this point. He conceded that the jurisdiction of the High Court under the Bill is not criminal but civil. I corrected that issue before. Noble Lords will find it corrected in Hansard on 26th July.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I acknowledge what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, says. Of course the issue—whether criminal or civil—does not go away because in order for there to be any effect given to any civil jurisdiction there have to be some remedies. I shall not say "penalties", but there must be remedies. I ask seriously whether that is the right approach.
	We recognise, of course, that, in certain circumstances, it is necessary to take action to ensure the maintenance of services. I make it entirely clear that we have never ruled out the possibility that industrial action in public services might need to be regulated further, but this Bill is not the way to achieve that.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, this is the occasion on which to thank everybody who has spoken. I can sincerely thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, because something that he said was quite new and, probably, of greater importance than anything that I have said. He said that the Government would consider the matter and introduce primary or secondary legislation, if they thought that it was necessary to do so. That almost justifies all the minutes that we have spent here talking about it.
	This is the occasion on which to thank noble Lords, and I thank my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy and the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I should have been in a difficult position without them. I thank them sincerely. It is not the occasion, with other business in hand, to entertain further argument about yet another misunderstanding—not wilful but total—by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, of how the Bill would work. It would take too long now, but we can explore the matter, if the Bill is given a Second Reading. We can debate it at another stage, on the basis of constructive amendments.
	The House will probably know that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, had to remove her name from the list because she had to visit hospital for an operation. I am sure that we wish her well. I do not know what has happened to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, who had his name down. I asked him whether he would like to speak, and he said that he would. Obviously, he has another engagement. I wish him well, too.
	On Question, Bill read a second time.

Health (Wales) Bill

Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Public Health Laboratory Service

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking to preserve the expertise and quality of the Public Health Laboratory Service.
	My Lords, I am most grateful to your Lordships for participating in this debate. Questions about the re-organisation of the Public Health Laboratory Service have featured here and in another place in recent months. The Government's responses have been most informative. The object of the debate is to bring to the attention of the Government the serious ongoing concerns about the re-organisation of the Public Health Laboratory Service; to highlight the severe manpower crisis in the recruitment and retention of biomedical officers; to allow debate to complement the deliberations of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on fighting infection, under the expert chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior; and to suggest to the Government that the time of transition in the management of the Public Health Laboratory Service may represent a time of vulnerability in the face of threats of deliberate release and bioterrorism.
	The debate is about the way in which infections and the threat that they pose are detected and managed. In his report entitled Getting Ahead of the Curve, the Chief Medical Officer for England states:
	"The problem of infection is never static".
	The new Health Protection Agency is being established to create a modern system to prevent, detect, investigate and control the infectious diseases threat and address health protection more widely. The Public Health Laboratory Service, a key component of the Health Protection Agency, has been a singly managed entity since 1991, but, in England, it is now being split between NHS trusts and the new agency.
	Recent examples of the efficacy of the Public Health Laboratory Service in surveillance, disease detection and control include bovine spongiform encephalopathy and variant CJD, meningitis and NHS winter pressures from influenza and bronchitis. Worldwide, several new pathogens and infectious diseases are identified annually. New strains of organisms emerge, such as drug-resistant TB, and we face a massive rise in sexually transmitted diseases. For example, data from Cardiff, I am ashamed to say, indicate that 12 per cent of sexually active young women have chlamydia. We also face unrelated—I hasten to add—salmonella food problems from eggs coming into the UK.
	The lessons of history are vital. Some crises were not managed as effectively and rapidly as they might have been. The reports on the Lanarkshire E. coli 0157 outbreak, the Stafford legionnaires' disease outbreak, and the food poisoning at the Stanley Royd Hospital all levelled criticisms at local laboratory services. In all those major outbreaks, the local clinical microbiology laboratories did not involve themselves proactively in the control of communicable disease, and the Public Health Laboratory Service was involved late in the outbreaks in England. In Lanarkshire, the Scottish Regional Hospital Board's provision of microbiology, with its voluntary system of surveillance, was criticised because the microbiology service tended,
	"to look too much to the hospital side of the NHS and the needs of the local health authorities, [did] not always get sufficient priority . . . The work of the Regional Laboratory Service in Scotland [was] not seen to extend beyond the walls of the [hospital] laboratories in which it operates".
	As Professor Duerden, Director of the Public Health Laboratory Service, said,
	"The whole point of communicable disease is that it doesn't respect boundaries so we need a system that works locally to regionally to nationally".
	The creation of the Health Protection Agency may achieve this end but the transition needs careful management.
	Concerns exist that the service developments in England—and in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—are becoming increasingly diverse, providing fragmented intelligence. Some specialised functions of the Public Health Laboratory Service, such as food, water and environment testing, may suffer, delaying reports on suspected outbreaks due to competing pressures from clinical work. Culture media production and equipment purchasing may suffer from loss of economy of scale and quality control.
	The special techniques for food, water and environmental testing require a critical mass of personnel able to process specimens rapidly, particularly if the target of the Food Standards Agency to reduce food-bourne infection by 25 per cent is to be attained. Information from such testing must directly link to clinical cases of illness; they cannot be separated. Simply placing Health Protection Agency-employed staff in laboratories with this remit will not be enough. Professional isolation is the greatest threat to keeping up-to-date and staff need infrastructure support in cohesively managed teams.
	In Wales, the surveillance laboratory network has, by contrast, grown over the past 10 years. Many NHS trusts already had handed over their microbiology laboratories to the Public Health Laboratory Service without tension. Very wide public consultation in Wales on Getting Ahead of the Curve resulted in overwhelming support from the continued existence of the communicable disease surveillance network. The National Public Health Service-Wales is the new managed clinical network which combines the public health laboratories, consultants in communicable disease control and their staff, the Communicable Diseases Surveillance Centre Wales and the resources of public health from the old health authorities. This unified National Public Health Service-Wales is already operational in shadow form, reporting to the Welsh National Assembly.
	I must declare an interest as this managed clinical network is incorporated into Velindre NHS Trust in which I work and which, apart from cancer services, incorporates the Wales Centre for Health, Health Solutions Wales, cancer screening services, antenatal services and Welsh Blood Service.
	This network provides pan-Wales multi-agency working, increased equity of provision, decreased variations in practice and wider connections for continuity from individual patients, through to disease control, within a single organisation. Links with environmental health officers are being developed through local health boards, which are coterminous with the local authorities. This provides the vital surveillance that Getting Ahead of the Curve identifies as the cornerstone to control of infectious disease in the population.
	So Wales has already refocused its service, but will have to work very closely with the Health Protection Agency in England to share specialist services and ensure that epidemiological intelligence is obtained from a UK perspective.
	Scotland has the Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health. However, the hospital laboratory system and the co-ordination needed for public health are currently under review. The surveillance for Northern Ireland is provided by the Public Health Laboratory Service as part of the Centre for Communicable Disease Control. Its public health microbiological laboratory is located and managed in Belfast with links to the Public Health Laboratory Service in England.
	Transfer of the 31 Public Health Laboratory Service laboratories in English hospitals to their host NHS trusts, with a commission from the Health Protection Agency, should ensure that all clinical microbiology laboratories are involved in public health. However, the danger in a split service is that the clinical pressures from the primary care trust and the hospital will be so great that public health readily falls behind urgent clinical priorities in these laboratories which are, by and large, under-resourced.
	In the regional Health Protection Agency laboratories public health will be a major part of the service contract, providing a regional resource in medical microbiology alongside the diagnostic clinical service commissioned by the host NHS trust and the primary care trust. The reference laboratories, some of which are not sited in the designated regional laboratories, are a resource that must not be overlooked.
	In England, while the consultants for communicable disease control are being brought into the Health Protection Agency to strengthen links from local to regional to national level, the local component of the microbiology service is being shed into local trusts, potentially separating it from an integrated system.
	The changes will be staged with the Health Protection Agency becoming a specialist health authority from April this year and then an executive non-departmental public body a year later following legislation. What are the costs of this two-stage process? Money, instability, artificial divisions, a loss of strategic vision and a decreased ability to respond to sudden surges in demand may be the costs.
	The transition requires funding. The laboratories in NHS trusts have been a Cinderella service for far too long. In the public eye, front-line clinical services, mostly nurses and doctors, have been in the spotlight. Government targets have pressurised clinical performance in some areas at the expense of others. But without sound pathology services overall, modern clinical practice fails. Accurate diagnosis is essential for correct treatment to occur. Inappropriate treatments cost thousands of pounds in drugs, in repeat investigations and longer hospital stays. Worse still, patients' lives are jeopardised.
	In microbiology, the biomedical scientists are in very short supply. These honours degree holders are the backbone of the service; they have sophisticated bench-work skills and they provide information that influences life and death decisions. Too few enter training and too few stay. The downward trend in recruitment is not reversing. Government initiatives on pay and flexible work patterns face stiff competition from industry for these scientists. Medical laboratory assistants support them, but at that grade there are insufficient funded posts and job vacancies also exist.
	The danger in transition is that the workforce is hesitant of change. The Trades Union Liaison Group meetings appear to be addressing the issues for existing staff and to smooth contract-of-employment transfers. Despite regular communications from the Department of Health, anxieties persist. A demoralised workforce does not work well. The service is then vulnerable to gaps in communication; when communication between parts of the service is slow or ineffective, disease control is jeopardised.
	The end point is laudable. The whole of the NHS has a public health responsibility. However, the resources for clinical and public health work are inadequate and the programme is not phased with the pathology modernisation programme. In the meantime, the threat of bio-terrorism requires an iron strong network for infectious disease detection, investigation and control. The exercises in scenario planning are highlighting the intense co-ordination that needs to occur. A network in transition often has unforeseen weak points.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I want briefly to intervene in the gap to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, on that stirring speech, with which I completely agree. My interest in this area is in bio-terrorism. I am sure that we all know that we should expect and plan for such an attack. It is so easy to make a pathogen which would have such an effect. I am sure that the Minister knows that we know how to make a version of smallpox which destroys the immune system. Many other potential recipes are known about. All one needs to achieve it is a supply of the raw materials and a laboratory. There are a great number of those around the world and, sadly, a large number of people have the religious-based motivation which allows them not to care for the continuation of life in this world if they can hurry us all into the next. We should expect this kind of thing to happen and we need to have the systems in place in this country to react swiftly and effectively should we be hit with an attack.
	The Public Health Laboratory Service is the key to that. It is the service which will detect what has happened. The difference between detecting a disease on day five and detecting on day 15 is crucial. On day five, one may have a hope of containing it; on day 15, one has none. As we saw with the foot and mouth outbreak, if one leaves it too late, the disease is distributed all over and is beyond the capacity of the authorities.
	We would then be faced with a crisis which we would probably not survive because the reaction of the outside world to us having a run-away killer infection such as smallpox would be to isolate the UK. It would be an easy thing to do: they need just stick a few boats around the outside and shoot anything that moves. In fact, we would probably be one of the few places in the world which could be so isolated and other countries would certainly do so. We know from the fuel strike exactly how long we would survive under those circumstances: the whole of civil society would start to fall apart after a couple of weeks.
	We therefore need some strong systems in this country to ensure that when a bio-terrorist attack happens to us—and we must expect it to happen to us—we catch it fast and deal with it effectively. Having a Public Health Laboratory Service which is integrated, effective and able to move from the first detection straight through to the overall reaction of the system with great speed is essential. We should not at this time be risking our ability to respond to a bio-terrorist attack in this way.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for initiating the debate. She put her considerable medical knowledge at our disposal—I found her comparison with Wales extremely helpful—in very calmly and cogently putting the case against the current proposed changes set out in the Chief Medical Officer's report of last January. I hope to be as cogent—I do not promise to be as calm—about these proposals.
	This month marks the anniversary of the CMO's report, Getting Ahead of the Curve. It has emerged more starkly than it did at the time that today's debate in regard to these proposals is not purely about routine response to public health issues but also about the crucial response to public health emergencies, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, emphasised, in terms of action against bio-terrorism and chemical terrorism.
	The PHLS has a long and distinguished history. It was established in 1947, but it was based on the emergency PHLS which was set up in the Second World War by Winston Churchill to combat what was then described as bacteriological warfare.
	Despite the long-standing nature of the PHLS, however, it is clear that a number of aspects of its reorganisation heralded by the report have some great advantages. The report rightly identifies many of the gaps in the system— particularly relating to emergencies in biological and chemical terrorism, where there has been no comprehensive surveillance system and where response has potentially been highly fragmented—and it puts forward welcome proposals to remedy the situation.
	In particular, I welcome the integration within the Health Protection Agency of the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research (CAMR) at Porton Down with the Central Public Health Laboratory (CPHL) at Colindale. It is a crucial relationship.
	In this context, when researching for this debate I came across a very interesting debate which took place in this House in 1969, at the height of the Vietnam War, on Porton Down and the dangers of the development of chemical and biological weapons. It was initiated by my late cousin, Michael Gresford-Jones, who was then the Bishop of St Albans. Pursuing a major national campaign, supported by the Church Times among others, he advocated the transfer of Porton Down to the Department of Health from the Ministry of Defence. He was insistent at the time that Porton Down should be engaged in tackling biological and chemical threats, not creating them. He would, I know, have been pleased with these proposals, which see his proposals bearing fruit after more than 30 years have elapsed.
	The new Health Protection Agency will also, very usefully in my view, subsume the National Forum for Chemical Incidents, originally set up in 1996; the National Poisons Information Service; and the National Radiological Protection Board, which advises and provides emergency response on radiation incidents. It is also welcome that consultants in communicable disease control will transfer to the new HPA.
	It is clear, too, following the conclusions of the Phillips report on BSE in 2000, that the communication of risk and the use of appropriate language is of key importance. A single body will be much better placed to do this.
	But there is a huge hole in these plans which has been emphasised by the replies the Minister has given to my Written Questions over the past month—that is, the failure to ensure that the Health Protection Agency will retain the managed network of PHLS microbiology laboratories which has built up high standards for the benefit of public health over many years. The proposal to transfer some 31 of these to NHS trusts has been decried by every relevant stakeholder involved, including the PHLS board, UNISON and laboratory managers. The critique by the Laboratory Managers Forum—which, I dare say, nearly all of us have had the benefit of reading—is, in my view, particularly devastating.
	This failure will be exacerbated by the fact that the new HPA will have no more resources, it appears, than were previously available, and it is not clear who will be financially supporting the PHLS laboratories after the transfer. The suspicion is growing that the transfer plans are a pure cost-cutting measure by the Government, and yet, paradoxically, moving these laboratories to a more fragmented arrangement may cost more.
	The essence of argument of the CMO, and now of the Department of Health, is that only specialist laboratories such as Colindale and those dealing with food, water and the environment need to be brought within the ambit of the new HPA. Clinical laboratories with diagnostic functions will transfer to the NHS. But without the 31 laboratories, the ability of the HPA to engage in surveillance, diagnosis, control and investigation of microbiological public health hazards and terrorist incidents will be gravely weakened.
	Effectively, the arms and legs of the HPA are being cut off. The strength of the PHLS laboratories has been the fact that they constitute a network with good inter-communication and common standards. This is appallingly short-sighted—especially when the United States wants to emulate our national network.
	The intention is that the laboratories will be grafted on to NHS trusts. But as Sir John Lilleyman, the president of the Royal College of Pathologists, pointed out in November, NHS laboratory services will collapse without further investment. There is a huge shortage, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, pointed out, of technical staff in NHS laboratories, particularly of laboratory scientific officers.
	The proposal to move the network of laboratories into the NHS was rightly described in a letter to The Times in September by a consultant microbiologist, Dr David Weldon, as an act of vandalism. The Department of Health appears to be claiming that transfer of PHLS laboratories will strengthen the NHS laboratories. But has it considered that the opposite could be the case?
	The activities of those laboratories are highly interdependent—both with each other and with the specialist laboratories. A strong network of laboratories, for public health purposes in particular in terms of diagnosis of infectious diseases as well as in respect of anti-terrorism, is crucial. For instance, as the Minister confirmed to me in a Written Answer, in the recent outbreak of legionella in Barrow-in-Furness the PHLS laboratories played a key role, in processing environmental specimens and in the typification of patient-derived legionella specimens for matching to the environmental evidence.
	How do we know that, once in the NHS, these laboratories will retain the same skills and the same high standards? Standard methods do not appear to have been adopted in the NHS. Indeed, very little information is available on the subject—in stark contrast to the standard methods that have been adopted within the PHLS.
	The Department of Health claims that the transfers are essential to create a comprehensive, coherent surveillance and outbreak response system. Surely, again, it will provide precisely the opposite.
	Has the Department of Health taken heed? Will it now rethink its proposals, so that the laboratories can go into the Health Protection Agency intact—at least for a period of time? Will it engage in further consultation on a revised model of the Health Protection Agency? Will it ensure that greater resources are allocated to the HPA? We look to the Minister for answers to all these questions.
	Furthermore, I hope that the Minister will answer this crucial question. What legal authority has been granted to carry out these reforms? It seems extraordinary that the Government are setting up the agency this April and still believe that only regulations will eventually be required to bring the new body into being and to transfer the PHLS laboratories to the NHS. Surely primary legislation will be required—among other things at least to ensure the integration of the NRPB, which was set up by statute, into the new HPA, and for the integration of the PHLS, which itself was originally set up by statute, into the HPA. Again, we look to the Minister for replies to these questions.
	In conclusion, far from their proposal providing a sound and welcome piece of organisational integration which will ensure that we are well equipped to combat terrorist threats, this Government, by their refusal to listen, risk ensuring that we are less prepared. All this is confirmed by the risk assessment paper written by Keith Saunders, the deputy director of the PHLS, referring to staffing meltdown and to the fact that public health laboratories may not be able to cope if there is a deliberate release of chemicals or biological weapons within the next three months.
	As it is, the National Audit Office produced a report in November on NHS emergency planning in England. It found that there were weaknesses in planning for post-September 11th incidents such as chemical and biological and mass casualty incidents. It is clear that these changes to the PHLS lab network, allied to the assumption of responsibility by PCTs in October for emergency planning, will only exacerbate the weaknesses.
	To date, the Secretary of State and Mr Nigel Crisp appear to have taken no notice of any criticism of the proposals. Genuine consultation on the transfer of the network of laboratories has been non-existent. I sincerely hope that the Minister and his colleagues will finally have the courage to do an about-turn and that they will not leave us all at unnecessary risk in the future.

Earl Howe: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness on so ably introducing this timely debate on a subject that has generated great concern both in Parliament and more widely. It is not the first time that the proposed reform of the Public Health Laboratory Service has been raised in your Lordships' House. But today's chorus of agreement that this debate is now so necessary and pressing is, I am afraid, a reflection of the decidedly unsatisfactory answers given by Ministers on the matter to date. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who, I have no doubt, is sincere in backing the proposals, will be able to persuade us that they have been properly thought through and are without question in the national interest.
	Examining what Ministers have said to date, it is perhaps instructive to start with what they perceive the current problem to be. The Government's analysis of the issue—in other words, the reason why, in their opinion, we need to reform the system—is not particularly controversial. In the document Getting Ahead of the Curve they refer to the need to create an integrated and comprehensive approach to health protection at national level down to regional and local levels. They also point out that, following the reorganisation of the NHS, our public health structure had to reflect the role that the different agencies should play. Microbiology laboratories, for example, are currently subject to a variety of management arrangements without the degree of security that they should properly have in current circumstances.
	I have no quarrel with those observations. Indeed, the aim of bringing together the work of the PHLS, the NRPB, Porton Down and the National Focus for Chemical Incidents under the single umbrella of a new agency is not in itself a concept with which I have a difficulty. Whether it represents the best possible way forward is another question. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, remarks, many people, particularly those most closely involved in the delivery of public health, do not feel that they have been properly consulted on the issue. One must admit that the consultation period last summer was brief.
	Nevertheless, establishing a new health protection agency seems a sensible way to achieve the Government's perfectly valid aims. We should not set our faces against any change whatever. But, having constructed the edifice and justified the concept, the Government promptly proceeded to undermine it by specifying that the majority of public health laboratories are not to be absorbed by the new agency, but instead consigned, individually, to the control of NHS trusts. I have said before that our antennae ought to start twitching whenever we see the word "modernisation" in a government document. Here it is again in Getting Ahead of the Curve:
	"Building on the existing strengths of this public health system, the proposals in the strategy aim to modernise it".
	It is a word that aims to reassure us and lull us along, but it means everything and nothing.
	Quite rightly, the Government insist that good surveillance is the cornerstone of any system for the control of infectious diseases, a point emphasised cogently by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. Without it, one cannot forecast threats, track diseases and disease trends, identify serious outbreaks or monitor how diseases are being brought under control.
	That sort of activity has to be co-ordinated across large geographic areas, often across the whole country, and even sometimes internationally. Yet by wanting to split up the existing network of laboratories the Government appear to be travelling in precisely the opposite direction. Yes, it is certainly true that about half of the activity of PHLS laboratories is currently accounted for by analytical and diagnostic work performed on behalf of NHS trusts. One could argue—and doubtless the Minister will—that by giving most of the microbiology labs to NHS trusts we would simply be recognising that, managerially speaking, it makes sense for a laboratory to be part of the organisation on which it depends for a large slice of its day-to-day work and which therefore has a direct interest in ensuring its efficiency and effectiveness. But that argument begs the very question which needs to be analysed, which is how best disease surveillance should be achieved. I suggest that it is the argument of the management consultant; the kind of logic which is generated from behind a desk rather than from any real appreciation of what the PHLS as a whole actually does.
	There are perhaps two main worries in this context, which the noble Baroness has already covered. They are the model itself and the speed of its implementation. I do not know how many of your Lordships saw a letter in The Times last September from David Weldon, the honorary consultant microbiologist at Bedford General Hospital. He is a man with considerable experience of both the NHS and of public health laboratories. He pointed out that the NHS is too stretched and too under-resourced to devote adequate time to epidemiology. Indeed, on the one hand, a hospital laboratory is answerable to an organisation which sees no direct gain in such work. On the other hand, public health laboratories are answerable to an authority that is not local and which understands and values epidemiology. That structure encourages openness and objectivity. The net result, David Weldon says, of splitting up the PHLS in the manner proposed will be the demotion of surveillance.
	I believe that those are issues which deserve at least some debate yet I have not seen the Government even address them neither have I seen them address the parallel concerns raised by Professor Hugh Pennington who fears that we are in danger of losing not only the expertise which has existed in the PHLS since the 1940s, but also the national network of laboratories and, crucially, the training function that the service performs. I believe that we must question the wisdom of dismantling that national network, an asset which has been regarded with envy from across the Atlantic. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, rightly pointed out that in the United States the absence of a networked service has proved directly responsible for the unmonitored and uncontrolled outbreak of epidemics.
	Of course, the Minister will tell us that core funding will be channelled to those laboratories that are transferred to the NHS to enable their public health work to continue. But what about national co-ordination? The networks so carefully built up over years will be destroyed. While it is hoped that new ones will spring up in their place, the almost inevitable discontinuity is, I suggest, an alarming prospect. It is a large step into the unknown. As my noble friend Lord Lucas so graphically pointed out, we are living in a time when the risk of a deliberate release of biological agents into the general population is of the highest order. In addition, there are several extremely serious infectious diseases which, if not detected in a timely way, could hit large sections of the population at any time and for which the country needs to be on heightened alert. For goodness sake, now is not the time to compromise our national public health capability. Having last year reformed the structure of the NHS, the Government are going all out to shoehorn public health into the NHS structure that they have created. They are doing so against a very tight timetable for implementation by 1st April 2003. At the very least, the risks of such reform should be openly admitted. At worst, the reform is foolhardy.
	One begins to appreciate the scale of the risk when one reads, as I have, the document that I have in front of me which is entitled, Report to HPA Steering Group on HPA Business Continuity: Risk Assessment. I hesitate before quoting selectively from such a document, which I believe has been prepared for departmental consumption, because I do not wish to be accused of distortion or of exaggeration. However, the executive summary has this to say:
	"It seems inevitable, if the timetable of 1st April 2003 for the HPA is to be delivered, some level of risk will have to be tolerated. Were there to be a severe external challenge over the next few months such as deliberate release, the situation and expected forward timetable would need rapid reappraisal".
	Those statements can only fill one with the utmost foreboding. The risk factors detailed in the paper are discussed one by one; some are not particularly significant, or else have been adequately covered. But when it comes to the PHLS, high risks are identified following potential loss of staff, leading to inadequate safeguards, poor service in routine microbiology, and a reduced commitment to public health work. There are "considerable" risks associated with destabilising the production of biological media, considered vital to ensure the correct diagnosis of disease. Reaching a solution on this issue is described as being "of the utmost urgency".
	The transfer of the laboratories to the NHS puts the bulk procurement discounts of the PHLS seriously at risk, leading, obviously, to an escalation in costs. The passage in the document that deals with the fragmentation of the national network is unequivocal. The network brings,
	"added value to the control of communicable disease over and above what can be provided by local authorities and the NHS . . . Throughout the PHLS are located individuals and units with unique specialist expertise . . . Integration between centre and periphery, and between microbiology and epidemiology, all within a clear policy framework, underpins the delivery of successful communicable disease control programmes. This is put at risk by separation of the laboratory network from the other functions".
	Two examples, pneumococcal disease and salmonella entiriditis are then given to demonstrate the importance of the integrated network. Then follows a paragraph labelled "Action", which says:
	"It is unclear how the totality of this integration could be recreated post April 2003. At least this will require complex service level agreements, professional networking meetings with dedicated resources and creative use of development funds".
	The Minister has said on at least one occasion in this House that it is better to get on with the proposed reforms than to create uncertainty. This document, which, no doubt, I was not expected to see, stands as an indictment of the Government's policies on public health. I have to ask the Minister which of the following two possibilities is worse: a continuing measure of uncertainty, or the real risk of a serious gap in the country's public health provision—one serious enough to lead the board of the PHLS to insist on a ministerial direction before implementing the changes?
	In Ministers' minds there should be no contest. Let us forget for a moment about whether the Government are ahead of the curve. It is crystal clear that they are way, way ahead of themselves.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for allowing us to debate once again the question of the creation of the HPA, as well as some of the issues raised by other speakers. From the content of the debate, it is interesting to note that there is consensus around, first, the essential urgency of reviewing the current arrangements to ensure that we are prepared for some of the new threats that have been so graphically described this evening by noble Lords.
	Secondly, I take it that the broad thrust of the Chief Medical Officer's proposals in his report of some 12 months ago is widely accepted and that the concerns held are about the speed of the transition and the laboratories that are to be transferred to the NHS. I am confident that the proposals are right. Speed is of the essence. It is important that in transferring and making the changes we make sure that the risks are minimised as far as possible.
	But I make no apology for the fact that a proper risk assessment has been undertaken. We would rightly be criticised if it had not been. The fact that it has taken place enables the people taking forward the changes to make sure that those risks are minimised. There is no question that we start from a general agreement that the PHLS has a significant level of expertise and quality that it is essential to preserve. But we cannot be complacent about our current arrangements.
	It is clear that no matter where we live in the United Kingdom we are only hours away from any traveller or food that may have come from exotic countries; we are having to deal with new technologies that may increase the risk of infection; and we have a greater number of patients with immunodeficiencies that make them more susceptible and vulnerable to infection. On top of these natural threats, we now have the spectre of deliberate release of pathogenic organisms such as anthrax and smallpox, which has made us all look afresh at how we may be able to respond and protect our population. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about the need for strong systems, but I do not accept that the proposals before the House put those systems at risk.
	This country has surveillance arrangements which achieve standards to match anywhere in the world. But we cannot run away from the weaknesses identified by the Chief Medical Officer. All noble Lords who have spoken have identified some of those problems. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, did so in her introductory remarks. They include reportable data being incomplete and not always reported on time; datasets not including particular pieces of information that are now thought to be important, such as antimicrobial susceptibility of certain organisms; that too much of the reporting chain is paper-based; and the limited linkage between human, veterinary, food, water, environmental and clinical surveillance systems so that interrelated emerging trends or incidents are not always recognised as promptly as they might be. It is my experience of the wonderful world of the National Health Service that it will always be argued that it is never a good time to change, but I believe it is the right time to address those weaknesses.
	The Chief Medical Officer's report, Getting Ahead of the Curve, and the strategy are the way forward. Anyone who knows the Chief Medical Officer knows that he has a deserved world-wide reputation. Does anyone believe that with his awesome public health responsibilities he would put forward proposals that would put at risk necessary surveillance in this country?
	The strategy increases the profile of infections in the eyes of the public and the NHS. It proposes a systematic approach to preventing and controlling infectious diseases that builds on current strengths in the PHLS but also in the NHS and related non-departmental public bodies. Crucially, it seeks to align the control of infections, chemical hazards and radiation hazards in a single coherent system so that we tackle problems in a structured way, especially where the nature of the problem might not be clear at the outset. That is surely a crucial aspect of dealing with the prospect of deliberate release of dangerous agents, an issue very much to the fore since September 11th 2001.
	The centrepiece of the Chief Medical Officer's strategy is the creation of the Health Protection Agency, the aim of which is to provide integrated, specialist advice and support to the NHS and other key bodies. That support is important and is one way in which the integrity of the current network will be preserved and enhanced. It will harness the epidemiological and specialist and reference facilities of the PHLS, the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research—I listened with great interest to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about the debates in this House 30 or so years ago—the National Radiological Protection Board, the National Focus for Chemical Incidents, the National Poisons Information Service and regional service provider units which give advice on chemicals.
	What has not been mentioned in the debate is that, at local and regional level in England, the HPA will incorporate the activities of consultants in communicable disease control and other health protection staff currently based in primary care trusts and regional health emergency planning advisers currently based in the Department of Health or the NHS. So part of the restructuring is to embrace people currently employed directly in the NHS within the HPA. It is an example of how we are pulling people together within a national strand of work and ensuring national co-ordination. Consequently, local primary health care teams, local authorities and others who undertake public health activities will be supported by specialists who are part of a regional and national agency. They can supply expertise and back-up wherever and whenever they are needed and can run programmes on their behalf.
	It is a pity that that particular change has been overlooked. The result of the proposals is a single national agency capable of delivering a coherent and unified specialist health protection service for the benefit of the public. It will strengthen this country's capacity to respond effectively to a chemical, biological or radiological incident. It will enable this country to contribute in an integrated way to a range of international initiatives. I also believe that it will further enhance our current high reputation for health protection expertise in the international community.
	I come now to the issue of the transfer of laboratories, a matter referred to by both the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I fundamentally disagree with their comments. I absolutely and categorically refute the allegation made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that this has been done as a cost-cutting exercise. Nothing could be further from the truth. We want to raise clinical microbiology standards across the NHS, which is why we have proposed strengthening the public health contribution of all NHS microbiology services. Consequently, all laboratories will report infections to public health authorities, send relevant specimens to reference laboratories, assist in managing outbreaks and contribute to the development of local public health policies.
	The implications of that philosophy—that each NHS diagnostic laboratory has general public health functions—has led to the proposal in the strategy to transfer to NHS trusts those laboratories in the Public Health Laboratory Service that carry out predominantly routine clinical diagnostic microbiology.
	Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, talking on a number of occasions about the need to transfer back to the NHS as much responsibility as possible, I believe that the transfer of some PHLS laboratories to the NHS should be welcomed. It gives to the NHS what it should do, but it enables the proposed new agency to concentrate on public health rather than on general clinical diagnostic services.
	It also follows from the fact that over 50 per cent of current routine clinical diagnostic microbiology is already carried out within the National Heal Service. With regard to the allegation by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that the arms or legs are being cut off the new agency, or that there will be professional isolation issues, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, let me make clear that the PHLS has always worked closely alongside its NHS colleagues, sometimes sharing the same laboratory facilities, and this move will build on that synergy. It will also bring general public health microbiology firmly into the mainstream of NHS activities. That surely is a great advantage when it comes to action to be taken at local level.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, if it were only noble Lords putting these points today, I would understand the absolute certainty with which the Minister puts the case. But he is aware that laboratory managers, the PHLS board, Unison and anyone else with intimate understanding of these laboratories disagrees with him. He has not addressed the points made. No doubt he will have read all the documents from groups such as the laboratory managers forum. He does not address the points they make.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I shall come to the detailed points raised. However, one should not underestimate the innate conservatism of people working in the National Health Service with regard to any change proposed—certainly during my years in the health service.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, that includes presumably the noble Lord's colleague on the Labour Back-Benches.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not know to whom the noble Lord refers, but if he refers to the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, I have had some useful discussions with him. I also know that whatever reservations the PHLS board may have had, it has pledged itself to co-operate as fully as possible with the transfer of those laboratories.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, but I must protest. The evidence from Wales has been that staff have transferred willingly from the NHS laboratories to the PHLS managed network. They have embraced change and the transition has been very smooth with no disruption. The staff themselves have wanted to move into a managed clinical network.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that. I take the point raised by the noble Baroness. I am keen to ensure that in terms of arrangements and co-ordination there is no fragmentation between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I agree with her on that.
	Let me pick up some specific points. On the issue of speed, my long experience of structural change in the National Health Service demonstrates that time and again we have had great problems because change has taken place too slowly. Decisions become blighted. People become uncertain about what is to happen to them. I am convinced that the key to organisational change is that once you have decided what to do, you do it decisively, of course with due regard to the interest and concerns of the staff involved and ensuring that you maintain a stable service.
	I come back to the point that the noble Earl raised about risk assessment. Surely it is right that a risk assessment should be undertaken. I do not think that there is any disagreement about that. I would expect any risk assessment to be undertaken seriously and for the relevant organisation to be as confident as it could be that it had quantified all the risks so far as possible. I believe that that has happened. I welcome the work of the HPA steering group that received the report to which the noble Earl referred. It agreed the key risks but it also agreed the action to be taken to address them. It agreed especially that interim directors would be appointed to the HPA to provide clear continuity of leadership during the transitional period. That is necessary to ensure that the identified risks are kept to a minimum.
	I turn to the question of whether the effective managed network of laboratories will be undermined, or, indeed, destroyed, as some noble Lords allege. That is the last thing that we would wish. We want to encourage the existing network to be maintained in the NHS environment and, indeed, to act as a catalyst for the growth of wider NHS pathology networks. The PHLS experience gained in overseeing networks activities such as standardising operating procedures and procuring media and other supplies will now become widely available to NHS trusts. The idea that the NHS is not able to run networks runs counter to the whole direction and trend in which the NHS is going, in which increasingly care is delivered across networks.
	The proposed Health Protection Agency will have a public health laboratory in every public health region. The public health and training outputs will be strengthened with the introduction of the funded public health microbiology posts at local and regional levels as well as by the inspector of microbiology who will oversee standards in service and security.
	On the question of funding, we are taking steps to ensure that all the laboratories transferred to NHS trusts are appropriately resourced and motivated to meet their public health responsibilities. We have already said that the public health funding for existing laboratories will be protected for that purpose for at least the first two years.
	As regards whether public health will figure as part of future NHS priorities, we are confident that the locally based public health microbiologists, together with the new regional public health microbiologists, and the national microbiology inspector will combine to make sure that the NHS keeps an appropriate focus on public health. I have met directors of public health in primary care trusts who are as concerned as everyone else to ensure that the new arrangements work effectively. We have ensured that directors of public health will be executive directors of primary care trusts. They will be in an excellent position to ensure that future resources will be adequate to meet the challenge that is faced.
	Noble Lords mentioned the supply of media for these laboratories being endangered. That is a vitally important matter. Media will continue to be procured in the existing four PHLS media production centres. Of course, some staff have concerns. We have been involved in discussions about the HPA with them for some months. But they know that they will have a future career either in the HPA, where they can have a better career path in specialist public health services, or in the NHS where they can have a better career path in pathology networks. The PHLS management is currently in the process of discussing with individual staff the implications as they affect them.
	I have spoken for considerably longer than the time I am allotted to reply to the debate, for which I apologise. However, it is important that I emphasise that I have listened to noble Lords' concerns and I understand their anxieties and motivation. We all wish there to be effective arrangements in future to enhance public protection. I am confident that what the Chief Medical Officer has proposed and the implementation programme will ensure enhanced public protection. I am absolutely confident, when a decision has been made in the National Health Service, that everyone involved will do everything that they can to minimise the risks and ensure that changes are made as swiftly as possible.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I do not want to delay the Minister unduly, but will he comment on the legal authority for these changes?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we intend that the agency will be established from 1st April 2003. We can establish it now as a special health authority, to be called the Health Protection Agency, which we will do. It will be responsible for functions under the NHS legislation which are to be given to the new agency.
	Our eventual aim is that the agency will be fully established as a non-departmental public body from 1st April 2004. That will be subject to legislative time being available. At that stage, it would take responsibility for functions currently performed by the National Radiological Protection Board. During the period when the HPA is a special health authority, we would expect the HPA and the NRPB to work closely together to prepare the merger. As for the transfer of laboratories from the PHLS to the NHS, I am reliably informed that no legislative power is needed to do that. It has been done before.

Soap and Detergent Industry

Lord Harrison: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to promote the well-being and competitiveness of the United Kingdom's soap and detergent industry.
	My Lords, I come from the land of soap, Cheshire and the Wirral, which I was honoured to represent for a decade in the European Parliament. Cheshire contains the salt mines whose deposits spawned the British chemicals industry. The Wirral hosts, among other firms, the soap giant, Unilever. Cheshire is also the home of the United Kingdom Cleaning Products Industry Association, to which I and other parliamentary colleagues are grateful for its servicing of our all-party group.
	I also come from the land of soap operas. Britain's North West is the home of "Coronation Street", "Brookside", "Hollyoaks" and north Wales's "Pobol y Cwm". The link between the soap industry and the soap operas is not accidental. The latter grew out of the playlets promoting soap products shown on TV at the dawn of commercial television. Those adverts themselves extended the established tradition of pictorial advertising promoting soap products. Indeed, the Lady Lever Art Gallery at Port Sunlight houses the wonderful picture collection of the annually chosen Pears soap girls.
	Today, the soap and detergent industry generates a £3 billion turnover, employs some 16,000 people and competes successfully with rivals in France and Germany in the single European market and beyond. Indeed, in the past five years, three out of five UK CPI members have experienced export growth. Soap and detergents represent approximately one-tenth of the UK chemicals industry, so it is a strategically important industry in modern Britain.
	How, then, can the Government help the industry to prosper further? First, the trade association tells us that the foam and froth of ever-growing legislation undermines firms, especially those in the SME sector. Typically, a small soap-maker in the North of England avers that implementing the integrated pollution prevention controls programme could cost £30,000 in compliance costs. The owner exclaims that it represents the difference between happiness or misery for the future of that firm. Will the Government dam that tide of legislation?
	Secondly, the high-street retailers of soap and detergent products are reluctant to shoulder the costs of the legislation. Everything falls on the manufacturer or the consumer, thereby eroding valuable margins and profits. When considering the soap and detergent sector, will my noble friend bear in mind the strictures of the Prime Minister on supermarkets in the analogous case of the Government's dealings with the farming industry?
	Thirdly, will the Government seek solutions with the industry to the vexed question of the differences in retail distribution structures in the United Kingdom and Europe?
	Indeed, I move specifically to the single European market and how the soaps and detergent industry might be affected by the draft proposals found in the EU's 2001 chemical strategy paper. The application of that to the chemical industry as a whole was discussed on Tuesday night in this House in relation to the February 2002 report, Reducing the Risk: Regulating Industrial Chemicals. I will not rehearse the many points made then, but does my noble friend recognise that the industry, although welcoming the White Paper, retains real concerns? Will any EU-wide regulation system, for instance, be fast, efficient and workable? Are the proposed timescales truly realistic?
	Will the Minister also agree that the proposed sizeable increase in testing of chemicals using invertebrate animals must be kept to a minimum, not only to satisfy animal welfare concerns, but to avoid unwanted additional costs? The UK CBI has calculated that such costs over the next 10 years could approach some 5 per cent of the industry's turnover, thereby rendering the industry less competitive.
	There are genuine anxieties associated with any industry dealing with potentially dangerous chemicals. Greenpeace does the industry a service by pointing to possible vulnerabilities of the regulatory regime proposed by the European Union. Greenpeace believes that regulation should be based on chemical properties, not solely on a risk assessment of the practical application of chemicals. Similarly, it supports registration based on the assessment of chemical groups, rather than of individual substances. Its fears may be overblown and otherwise impractical, but the Government must, for instance, press for greater dispatch in identifying those chemicals that give rise to the greatest concerns, and ensure that they are assessed competently and promptly for the sake of continuing consumer confidence in the industry.
	Perhaps Greenpeace has a more substantial point in calling for greater transparency from the chemical manufacturers in providing the relevant basic data on chemicals put on the market. Recourse to the claim that such transparency would trespass on commercial confidentiality is too often taken off the shelf as an easy get-out clause. That point was made forcefully by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, in Tuesday's debate. The cleaning industry must come clean in all but the most clearly demonstrated commercial instances.
	I congratulate the DTI—the Minister's department—on its excellent report analysing the soap and detergent industry. However, after identifying four strengths of the industry, the report lists 11 weaknesses that clearly impede the industry's competitiveness. In many instances, the Government have it in their power to help.
	The soap and detergent industry in the United Kingdom is characterised as being isolated from Europe and is suffering from an unfavourable sterling/euro exchange rate. Will the Minister press for that and other manufacturing industries to feature strongly in Gordon Brown's eventual assessment of the five economic tests as to whether we go into the euro?
	Secondly, early and more stringent implementation of contingent EU directives by the United Kingdom appears to disadvantage our own British firms. What is the solution? It is not the weakening or delay of sensible legislation but a rigorous, indeed combative, approach to the Commission to oblige all EU partners to implement legislation agreed in Brussels without hesitation, deviation or repetition of past backsliding.
	The DTI report also alludes to an issue in the industrial and institutional product sector, which has implications not only for the well-being of the industry, but also for the cleanliness of our hospital wards and the care of NHS patients. I understand that the lack of cleaning operation standards and agreed procedures means that some hospital trusts purchase cleaning materials from the industry solely on cost grounds when efficacy should be the deciding factor. Will the Minister agree to consult his health colleagues on that particular issue?
	Classically, the industry is split between big companies and small firms. The big firms can often look after themselves, but small firms experience real difficulty, according to the DTI report, in obtaining government information, advice and help, which has so visibly helped small firms in other manufacturing sectors. Can the Government redouble their efforts to help the soap and detergent industry and the small firms within it?
	Another issue is energy. Its costs fall disproportionately on this sector. Natural gas premiums, for instance, have risen 60 per cent in the past 12 months and the climate change levy has yet to kick in.
	Finally, I mention the report's observations on the United Kingdom educational system, which has failed to supply in sufficient numbers employees with technical and engineering skills to match the industry's needs and ambitions. Disappointingly, the soap and detergent industry is perceived as being even less attractive to the public and to graduates than almost any other manufacturing industry. The Government can help here, but the greater burden falls on the industry itself, which sometimes displays a defensiveness and a lack of confidence that conceals its attractiveness as a career to our young people. In recruitment terms, we might say that, "It's time more young people were taken to the cleaners".
	However, the situation is beginning to change and the industry is striving to give a better account of itself. I note with pleasure the industry's recent "Hooray for Handwashing" initiative, which has successfully sponsored excellent classroom materials, and which is designed for four to seven-year olds as a fun and easy way to teach children good health habits. Some 2,000 primary schools have already benefited from the programme.
	The industry, backed by the Government, must find more imaginative and innovative ways to tell its good story as one of Britain's brightest and cleanest industries. Perhaps it is time for another soap opera to tell of the every-day life of its employees, entitled perhaps, "The Port Sunlighters".
	In the meantime, let us not wash our hands of this important industry that supports Britain in a widening Europe and in a cleaner world.

Lord Razzall: My Lords, like, I suspect, a number of noble Lords, when I first saw the Unstarred Question on the Order Paper I was tempted to wonder how I was going to speak for 10 minutes without deviation, hesitation or repetition on the topic of soap and detergent. The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, did not resist the temptation to make those allusions, but I shall not repeat them here. The noble Lord has raised an important issue, and he has proved to be an accurate and adequate exponent of the views of the UK Cleaning Products Industry Association and the parliamentary all-party group on the topic. The noble Lord has raised several important issues for the Government.
	I shall not repeat anything that the noble Lord said, and I shall examine the industry from a slightly different perspective. The industry has several characteristics that are not entirely shared by most manufacturing industries. That is certainly true for Unilever and Procter & Gamble, which are the two main players in the industry. Primarily, it is a brand business. One of the major characteristics of a brand business is that it is driven not by scientific or technological developments but, primarily, by a perception of what the customer wants. What the customer wants is driven, to a large extent, by Procter & Gamble and Unilever through massive advertising and marketing campaigns and not necessarily by the nature of the product. As the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, said, all of us have been brought up, through the formative years of ITV, since its creation in the early 1950s, with the massive soap powder wars between Persil and Tide, Persil and Ariel and so on. To a large extent, that has created the market, as well as fulfilling it.
	The massive advertising spend of Unilever and Procter & Gamble means that a product such as Ecover, produced by a Belgian company that produces green, ecologically friendly detergent and washing machine powders, has not made the impact on the UK market that many of us would have wished. The massive drive towards expenditure on advertising also means that, when costs need to be cut, products get shelved. For example, when, two years ago, Durk Jager was replaced as chief executive of Procter & Gamble by AG Lafley, Lafley's immediate strategy was to talk about,
	"big brands, big countries and big customers".
	That meant that the Procter & Gamble business strategy was to have 12 1 billion dollar-plus brands, delivering 50 per cent of Procter & Gamble's sales and profits. Inevitably, that meant that products were eliminated from the manufacturing process in the United Kingdom. When Niall FitzGerald faced similar problems at Unilever, two or three years ago, he admitted that the policy was to target brands. He said:
	"We want about 40 to 50 true global brands".
	The interesting thing about both those quotations is that in neither case did the chief executive of the company say that what he wanted was more and better technological innovation for the customer. That raises serious issues for the industry and, particularly, the way in which the industry is lobbying the Government.
	The industry must answer four major questions. It believes that it has answered them, but I would welcome the Minister's views on them. First, do the Government accept the industry's view that detergents do not biodegrade? Secondly, do the Government accept the industry's view that phosphate in detergent is not a major cause of pollution? Thirdly, do Her Majesty's Government accept the industry's view that cleaning products, detergents and soaps contain disrupters that produce oestrogenic effects in the environment? Fourthly, do Her Majesty's Government accept the industry's view that cleaning, hygiene and surface care products do not have a poor environmental and safety standard, with inadequate labelling? Those are four significant questions. The industry believes that it has been misrepresented on those four questions. It would be interesting if the Minister could give the view of Her Majesty's Government.
	One of the problems with certainly the two major companies is that when they are faced with a perception it is dealt with not by technological development but by marketing. In my research for this debate, I was intrigued to read an article in the Independent on Sunday, in May of last year, in which Peter York described in the following way the Persil advertising programme that had just been launched:
	"So there's a new Persil and they're advertising it furiously, in a most singular way. A fantasy animated way that's somewhere between Teletubbies and Yellow Submarine. It's a subconscious infantile world where everything is nice and natural. The naturalness, the greenness, comes from aloe vera, which is some sort of plant mush they put in skin creams and cosmetics. Here it's a magical green Persil that makes tropical plants sprout and causes naked sexless types with funny haircuts . . . to blurp and twitter".
	The point, of course, is to address and give the impression to people that Persil is ecologically clean and ecologically green. The advertising is designed to do that rather than the product itself.
	I believe that that is a concern about the advertising industry and a concern about Unilever and Procter & Gamble. Although I understand that this is an important industry, I think that there is a danger that they doth protest a little too much about the way in which they have been treated.
	However, there is a real challenge to the detergent industry. It comes from the development of a washing machine that runs without soap and produces clean, fresh-laundered garments every time. The Sanyo corporation launched such a machine just over a year ago. That will provide a significant test for the detergent industry because even in the best case scenario where the new technology results in consumers using washing products for, let us say, half of their washing needs, that will provide a massive problem for the two major companies in particular—and the small and medium-sized enterprises which are dependent on them—as to how they deal with it. In the mean time, I shall be using Ecover.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for having given us the chance to have this debate today. I am grateful not only for the clear and thoughtful way in which he opened the debate, but it also gives the House the chance to consider the problems of a particular industry. I find that in debates in your Lordships' House we are inclined to talk about industry in a very broad-based macro sense of that term. To be sure, there are fundamental trends at work affecting industry as a whole. We have already heard about some of them from the noble Lord and I shall want to refer to some of them too.
	However, we must not forget that a macro industry is made up of a whole series of micro sub-sets—particular industrial sub-sectors all with their own particular challenges and opportunities. Finally, we must remember that those sub-sectors are, in turn, made up of individual companies in which real people work; people for whom contraction or consolidation is not a paper concept in some government office, but job losses causing at least disappointment and broken dreams and, at worst, genuine hardship and pain.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, pointed out, some of the issues in the debate were touched on in your Lordships' House on Tuesday; notably the dangers of cumbersome, bureaucratic procedures and the actions of some EU member states in seeking to delay the implementation of individual directives. I do not wish to take up the time of the House by repeating that. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, replying for the Government in the debate, did not seem able to offer much comfort, so I hope we shall fare better with the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, today, bearing in mind that his full title is Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science and Innovation.
	As regards this sub-sector, our discussions can be illuminated by the study referred to by the noble Lord, commissioned by the Department of Trade and Industry. It is a heavy study but, in contravention of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, I did not find it convincing in part in its analysis. It seems to be contradictory. Let us take research and development and a key issue in a fast-moving industry such as soap and detergent. Despite the words of the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, the SWOT analysis in the report states:
	"Currently, the levels and quality of R&D in the sector are considered to be approaching world class standard".
	The Minister knows I am keen on world class. However, the competitive situation and analysis at Chapter 2, page 9, concludes by stating:
	"The science base is strong but there are weaknesses in R&D".
	That is a critical issue and I believe that a report such as this needs to be clear about whether or not the R&D within the industry is adequate.
	I must say that in other areas the report would have benefited from a good editor to remove typos, some of which make the passages unintelligible; repetitions of sentences and sometimes paragraphs; and the removal of many parts of the report which, frankly, represent no more than today's glimpse of the obvious. A section in Chapter 6, page 66, states:
	"Conversely, fewer new buildings in relevant sectors may result in reduced demand for cleaning chemicals".
	I could have worked that out for myself: I do not need an expensive consultant to be told that.
	Those defects affect one's confidence in the whole report, but undoubtedly it has illuminated two key issues to which the Government need to react and consider. The first has been touched upon already: it is the future role, if any, for the small and medium-sized enterprise in the consumer manufacturing business in an age of mass retailing.
	I am sure that the Minister will have seen in yesterday's Financial Times the interview with Lee Scott, chief executive of Wal-Mart. It contained some challenging trends which are clearly the way of the future. We discussed some of those issues during our debates on the Enterprise Act earlier in the year. There is a balance to be struck between price reductions on the one hand—clearly very desirable and attractive—as against consumer choice and availability on the other. The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, referred to the green issue, which is an important sub-set of the whole issue of consumer choice and availability. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what role, if any, he sees the Government having in trying to square this admittedly intractable circle.
	Secondly, I turn to the impact of regulatory directives, especially where these emanate from the European Union. The report makes clear that there is widespread concern in the soap and detergent industry and it is shared by many other industrial sub-sectors. Rightly or wrongly, it is believed that the UK adopts directives faster than its EU competitors; secondly, that it improves and gold-plates them by widening, broadening and strengthening them far beyond what is required by the original directive; and, thirdly, that it enforces the provisions more stringently and effectively than its EU competitors, thus putting firms in this country at a competitive disadvantage.
	To these I would add a fourth issue—that is, that while the UK is fairly quick to bring in the legislation it is often slow to bring in the detailed guidance. Three weeks ago, just before Christmas, the Minister and I had the pleasure of debating the flexible working regulations. These regulations enable parents of young or disabled children to apply for flexible working. They will affect every company, big or small, in this country. They are complex and they come into effect on 23rd April.
	When I asked the Minister how companies, particularly smaller companies, would be able to interpret the regulations, he told me that I should not be at all concerned about it because clear guidance would be provided. But, on inquiry, he said that it was not yet available. I will hazard a small wager with the Minister that the guidance is still not available today.
	We are now 12 weeks away from the coming into force of the regulations and we still have no practical guidance for businesses. This does not help businesses to keep down the cost of complying with regulation. Indeed, it leads to an increase in complaints about the regulatory burden as a whole.
	Another area to which, in my view, the report paid insufficient attention was the impact that the decline of one sub-sector has on other sub-sectors, for these individual sub-sectors do not exist in isolation. My analysis of discussions with sources within the industry suggests that if there were to be declines in the soap and detergent industry within the UK there will be significant knock-on effects in at least five other industrial sectors—that is, the trade in fats and oils; firms that purify and process fats and oils; firms that produce soda ash and other bulking agents used in soaps and detergents; firms that produce silicates; and firms that produce perfumes and fragrances.
	We need to be very clear about what are these knock-on effects and how they are impacting. In his opening remarks, the noble Lord said that they do not affect only the soap and detergent industry. That is quite true. I declare an interest as the chairman of an engineering company based in the north-west which supplies the engineering industry. Our business in the UK is in steady decline because our customers are all getting smaller—down sizing, in the ghastly modern phrase—or closing down completely.
	I am afraid that the inevitable conclusion is that one is forced to accept that the Government have been extraordinarily careless about and/or indifferent to the challenges faced by manufacturing industry. I have referred already to the regulatory burden, but there is an equally heavy cost burden—for example, the climate change levy, the aggregate tax levy, the landfill tax levy. Individual firms may be able to escape these in whole or in part, but no firm can escape the proposed increase in national insurance. Far from being only an additional 1 per cent on the employee—in fact, more truthfully, it is not a 1 per cent but a 10 per cent increase in the tax collected—it is matched by an additional burden on the employer.
	And, of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, pointed out, no exporting firm has been able to avoid the impact of the strength of sterling.
	It is no wonder that, as companies struggle to contain costs by seeking scale, they are increasingly looking to other regions, such as Eastern Europe, where wage costs are lower and where perhaps directives and regulations may be less stringently enforced. The result of all this across the UK manufacturing sector has been the loss of 450,000 jobs since 1997, down from 4.1 million to 3.7 million. This represents 1,700 jobs every week since the Government took office—1,700 people whose dreams are shattered. That is why this House—and, indeed, the country—should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for introducing this important debate today.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Harrison on initiating the debate. He spoke eloquently on behalf of the soap and detergents industry, which plays such an important part in the history of the area in which he lives and which he has so ably represented for 10 years in the European Parliament.
	As my noble friend said, this sector represents an important part of our manufacturing base, not only in the north-west but at a national level. He has given the figures illustrating its importance.
	I should like to add that it is a very innovative industry and is a growth sector. Over the past decade the output of the soap and detergent industry has grown in real terms by an average of 1.3 per cent per year. So this is not a declining industry, but one of growth and innovation. Beyond its economic importance, the products of the industry play a fundamental part in the general health and well-being of the nation.
	First, I should make it clear that we have done a number of important studies and have taken important action which impinges on this industry. So this is not a question of coming to the Dispatch Box and saying that we are very concerned about this: we have already taken important action.
	A good starting-point for looking at the future competitiveness and well-being of the industry is the report presented to government last month by the Chemicals Innovation and Growth Team. This body was set up at the beginning of 2002 to examine the main issues and challenges facing the whole of the chemicals industry and as a focus for engagement between government and the industry.
	The report recommends action in a number of areas. I am pleased that the industry has taken up this challenge in a number of key areas through the establishment of a chemistry leadership council. The report sets out a number of key areas for action: first, to seek to improve the industry's reputation, self-regulation and communication with its stakeholders.
	I do not propose to enter into the debate raised by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall; namely, whether or not the reputation of the industry reflects its performance. I merely say that we believe that the chemical industry, and indeed this particular industry, should be regulated carefully because of the issues of its impact on the environment. It is to the credit of the chemical industry in its totality that it is prepared to accept the necessity for such regulation and the necessity for it to do more to communicate both what it is already doing and the further action that it will take in terms of self-regulation.
	The chemical industry leadership also believes that it has to prioritise and drive research and innovation in the industry for a chemicals innovation centre; to promote the UK as a location of choice for start-ups and investors in the chemical industry; and to define the nature of the skills issues and to work with the skills providers to improve training in the industry. All these issues impact on the soap and detergent sector. I am sure that the industry will engage fully in taking forward these recommendations. For their part, the Government are pledged to work with the industry on these and other issues to help to ensure that we continue to have a thriving and sustainable chemical industry in this country.
	In addition, last year the Government published their manufacturing strategy, which highlighted the fundamental importance to our economy of manufacturing and the actions that the Government were taking to support it.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, produced figures relating to the decline in manufacturing jobs in recent years. I am sure that he is well aware of the much faster decline in manufacturing that took place under the previous Conservative government.
	I refer also to the specific SWOT analysis of the UK soap and detergent industry undertaken jointly by the DTI and the UK Cleaning Products Industry Association. I mention this as a lead-in to some specific points that were raised, but also to show that we are taking very seriously the competitive position of this industry.
	I turn to some of the issues raised in the debate. My noble friend Lord Harrison and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, raised the question of the burdens of regulation on the soap and detergent industry and the effects that this is having on the competitive sector and the relative attractiveness of the UK as a manufacturing base.
	The UK scores well internationally on its regulatory environment. The Government are, nevertheless, conscious of the need to maintain that advantage and to retain the right balance. We are committed to better regulation and to reducing the burden of regulation, particularly on small companies. But we think that the chemical industry should be highly regulated because of its potential impact on the environment. To achieve the right balance, the Government are stepping up their actions to promote the involvement of business and other stakeholders at an early stage. We are championing better regulation in Europe and looking to improve the way in which specific regulations are enforced to address business concerns about unfair or inconsistent enforcement.
	The EU chemical strategy is enormously important. The Government support the overall aim and approach of the EU's White Paper on chemicals, on improving our knowledge about any risks associated with chemicals currently in use, and establishing authorisations on their use. We are, however, extremely concerned that the system put in place to cover the registration, evaluation and authorisation of such chemicals is streamlined, workable and focused on the chemicals of most concern.
	To this end, the Government have published a position statement, before the legislation comes out, outlining how we think key elements of the system might operate in a practicable way. We are sufficiently concerned that we produced that position paper to make very clear to the Commission that we think major changes must be made to what was initially put forward, if the legislation is to be practicable and, critically, if it is not to reduce the amount of innovation in the chemical industry. Innovation in the chemical industry will be critically important in the future. If we are to solve many of our environmental problems, it will be because of more innovation in the chemical industry. Therefore, it is fundamentally important that we get the EU chemical strategy right. The UK Cleaning Products Industry Association says that it,
	"fully supports the Government's approach as outlined in their position paper".
	So, in this case, we and the industry are working together to make certain that this is practicable.
	The Government have also formed a downstream users' group to ensure that the users, as well as the manufacturers, of chemicals can input into the development of the EU regulation. The soap and detergent sector is represented on that group, and we very much welcome their contributions. In many ways I appreciate that the soap and detergent industry has paved the way for some of this work through its voluntary initiative on human and environmental risk assessment. It has started the process of analysis of the risks and hazards to both consumers and the environment of the chemical ingredients in its products. This is a very welcome and positive step. I am sure that the model it has adopted and the experience it has gained from it will be helpful in framing the mechanism under which the EU chemical strategy may operate.
	The noble Lords, Lord Harrison and Lord Hodgson, raised the issue of the relative power of the retailers in this country, and the relative cost pressures this puts upon manufacturers of soap and detergents. I appreciate the point. Soap and detergent companies are not alone in this complaint. But, essentially, this must be a matter for the companies concerned and the relationship they have along all aspects of the supply chain within normal competition rules.
	The Government are, however, keen to help companies to reduce their cost base in their manufacturing operations and within their supply chain. To this end, we have supported a number of industry forums to help companies to look at their internal efficiencies. There is such a body for the chemical industry: the Process Industry Centre for Manufacturing Excellence, which is doing an extremely good job. I urge soap and detergent companies to take advantage of this support.
	The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, mentioned hospital cleaning standards. I gather that the industry is in touch with the Department of Health and the Food Standards Agency about this. I will draw the issue to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health. DTI officials would also be happy to support the industry in this matter with other departments.
	Finally, I shall deal with two positive aspects of this industry. The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, suggested that science and innovation was not very important to this industry. In fact, science and innovation is a particular feature of the soap and detergent industry because it is an industry which needs to be fast-moving, innovative and adaptable to changing consumer demand and the needs of the environment. Consumers are looking for products giving added convenience and different effects. This is manifested in new product forms such as tablets and liquid soaps or in the move towards easy ironing and fresher smelling clothing. At the same time society demands higher standards on the effects of these soaps and detergents entering our environment, both at the manufacturing stage and after use.
	I am very pleased that the soap and detergent industry of the United Kingdom has risen to these challenges. The UK hosts important centres of global R&D in some of the technologies critical to the future development of this industry. The DTI is supporting activities to bring researchers and businesses together in these key areas. In particular we have two Faraday partnerships relevant to developments on the soap and detergent industry and funded by the DTI. One is the IMPACT Faraday on the use of colloid technology to support the design and development of innovative materials and new formulated products across the chemicals industry. Clearly, that is extremely important for the soaps and detergent industry. The second is the CRYSTAL Faraday partnership to help spread the implementation of green technology and practices in the industry.
	As welcome as all this is, the chemical industry's Innovation and Growth Team report has said that the chemical industry generally needs to invest more in R&D. As I have said, one of its recommendations is for the establishment of a chemicals innovation centre to act as the specialist central hub for knowledge transfer for innovation technology and product development. I am sure that the soap and detergent industry will want to play an active part in the development of these ideas.
	The second area which I would like to spend a couple of minutes on is skills and training because it is obviously also something which is important to the industry in terms of contributing to higher productivity and the exploitation of investment and new ideas. Again, referring to the chemical industry's Innovation and Growth Team report, it points out that that is a particular issue for the chemical industry. I know that the quality and number of potential recruits has been highlighted as a particular concern in the soaps and detergent sector.
	The Chemical Innovation Growth Team report recognises that the chemical industry needs to engage more closely with the development of the skills infrastructure in the country and to articulate more clearly what the needs may be. I therefore welcome its recommendation to establish a chemicals skills network to enable the industry to formulate more clearly and inclusively its priorities on skills issues through the sector skills councils and the learning and skills centres.
	I hope that I have illustrated that the Government take seriously the future competitiveness and sustainable development of the manufacturing of soap and detergents in this country. Not only have we already done some of the important work with the chemical industry to establish what the key issues are, but we have also, as I have illustrated as regards the science and innovation side, taken some action to provide help.
	The industry's destiny must lie primarily in its own hands. I very much welcome what UK companies are doing, and have done, to improve their competitiveness and environmental performance. However, we recognise that the Government have a supportive role to play. We need to set a macro-economic framework for the industry's growth and development. We need to ensure that it has access to a supportive science base; we need to ensure that it has access to the qualified workforce that it needs; and we need to reflect its needs and circumstances in the development and enactment of regulation. This we will do. We will also continue to promote and champion the industry in whatever ways that we can.

House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past seven o'clock.